United States v. Deveaux

U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
United States v. Deveaux, 117 F. App'x 299 (4th Cir. 2004)

United States v. Deveaux

Opinion

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 04-7429

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

versus

LEROY MAURICE DEVEAUX,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Orangeburg. Cameron McGowan Currie, District Judge. (CR-01-96; CA-03-3865-5-22)

Submitted: December 8, 2004 Decided: December 29, 2004

Before MICHAEL and MOTZ, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Leroy Maurice DeVeaux, Appellant Pro Se. William Kenneth Witherspoon, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

Leroy Maurice DeVeaux 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 proceeding under

28 U.S.C. § 2255

(2000) unless a circuit justice

or judge issues a certificate of appealability.

28 U.S.C. § 2253

(c)(1)(B) (2000). 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 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 DeVeaux 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Unpublished