United States v. Outlaw , 159 F. App'x 515 ( 2005 )


Menu:
  •                             UNPUBLISHED
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
    No. 05-6081
    UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
    Plaintiff - Appellee,
    versus
    ARTHUR ALAN OUTLAW,
    Defendant - Appellant.
    Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western
    District of Virginia, at Roanoke.     Jackson L. Kiser, Senior
    District Judge. (CR-00-114; CA-03-719-7)
    Submitted:   November 28, 2005         Decided:     December 27, 2005
    Before MICHAEL, MOTZ, and KING, Circuit Judges.
    Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
    Arthur Alan Outlaw, Appellant Pro Se. Donald Ray Wolthuis, OFFICE
    OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Roanoke, Virginia, for Appellee.
    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
    See Local Rule 36(c).
    PER CURIAM:
    Arthur Alan Outlaw seeks to appeal the district court’s
    order denying relief on his motion filed under 
    28 U.S.C. § 2255
    (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
    his constitutional claims are debatable and that any dispositive
    procedural rulings by the district court are also debatable or
    wrong.     See 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 Outlaw 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 -
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 05-6081

Citation Numbers: 159 F. App'x 515

Filed Date: 12/27/2005

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 4/18/2021