United States v. Cureton

U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
United States v. Cureton, 115 F. App'x 152 (4th Cir. 2004)

United States v. Cureton

Opinion

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 04-7483

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

versus

TERRY EUGENE CURETON,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina, at Charlotte. Graham C. Mullen, Chief District Judge. (CR-00-222; CA-04-226-3)

Submitted: December 9, 2004 Decided: December 16, 2004

Before NIEMEYER, WILLIAMS, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Terry Eugene Cureton, Appellant Pro Se. Jennifer Marie Hoefling, Assistant United States Attorney, Charlotte, North Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM:

Terry Eugene Cureton seeks to appeal the district court’s

order denying relief on his motion filed under

28 U.S.C. § 2255

(2000). An appeal may not be taken 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 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

(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 Cureton 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 -

Reference

Status
Unpublished