United States v. Russell , 225 F. App'x 98 ( 2007 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 06-7724
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
versus
TERRENCE RENARD RUSSELL,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Alexandria. Henry Coke Morgan, Jr.,
Senior District Judge. (1:97-cr-00382)
Submitted: April 26, 2007 Decided: May 1, 2007
Before WILLIAMS, MICHAEL, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Terrence Renard Russell, Appellant Pro Se. James L. Trump, OFFICE
OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Alexandria, Virginia, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Terrence Renard Russell seeks to appeal the district
court’s order dismissing his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000) motion as a
successive motion for which authorization had not been granted.
See 28 U.S.C. § 2244 (2000). The order is not appealable unless a
circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28
U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2000). A certificate of appealability will
not issue absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a
constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2000). A prisoner
satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists
would find that any assessment of the constitutional claims by the
district court is debatable or wrong and that any dispositive
procedural ruling by the district court is likewise debatable.
Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 336-38 (2003); Slack v.
McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000); Rose v. Lee, 252 F.3d 676, 683-
84 (4th Cir. 2001). We have independently reviewed the record and
conclude that Russell has not made the requisite showing.
Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the
appeal. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal
contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the
court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
DISMISSED
- 2 -