United States v. Fields , 100 F. App'x 928 ( 2004 )


Menu:
  •                              UNPUBLISHED
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
    No. 04-6296
    UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
    Plaintiff - Appellee,
    versus
    DONALD JEROME FIELDS,
    Defendant - Appellant.
    Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle
    District of North Carolina, at Durham. William L. Osteen, District
    Judge. (CR-00-405; CA-02-980-1)
    Submitted:   June 10, 2004                 Decided:   June 18, 2004
    Before WILLIAMS and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
    Circuit Judge.
    Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
    Donald Jerome Fields, Appellant Pro Se. Steven Hale Levin, OFFICE
    OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Greensboro, North Carolina, for
    Appellee.
    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
    See Local Rule 36(c).
    PER CURIAM:
    Donald Jerome Fields appeals the district court’s order
    accepting the report and recommendation of a magistrate judge and
    denying his 
    28 U.S.C. § 2255
     (2000) motion to vacate his sentence.
    An appeal may not be taken to this court from the final order in a
    § 2255 proceeding 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   jurists     of   reason    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 (2003);
    Slack v. McDaniel, 
    529 U.S. 473
    , 484 (2000); Rose v. Lee, 
    252 F.3d 676
    , 683 (4th Cir. 2001).
    We have reviewed the record and conclude that Fields has
    not made the requisite showing. We therefore 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 in the decisional process.
    DISMISSED
    - 2 -
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 04-6296

Citation Numbers: 100 F. App'x 928

Filed Date: 6/18/2004

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 4/18/2021