United States v. Marshall , 142 F. App'x 757 ( 2005 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 05-6568
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
versus
JERMEER MARSHALL,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western
District of Virginia, at Roanoke. Norman K. Moon, District Judge.
(CR-00-60; CA-03-358-7)
Submitted: August 25, 2005 Decided: September 2, 2005
Before TRAXLER and SHEDD, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judge.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Jermeer Marshall, Appellant Pro Se. Ray B. Fitzgerald, Jr., OFFICE
OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Charlottesville, Virginia, for
Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:
Jermeer Marshall seeks to appeal the district court’s
order denying his motion to reconsider a prior order denying relief
on his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000) motion. An appeal may not be taken
from the final order in a habeas proceeding unless a circuit
justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C.
§ 2253(c)(1) (2000); Reid v. Angelone, 369 F.3d 363, 370 (4th Cir.
2004) (applying the certificate of appealability requirement to
appellate review of the denial of a Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b) motion).
A certificate of appealability will not issue for claims addressed
by a district court 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 the district court’s assessment of his
constitutional claims is 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 independently reviewed the
record and conclude that Marshall 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
- 2 -
materials before the court and argument would not aid the
decisional process.
DISMISSED
- 3 -