United States v. Pryor

U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
United States v. Pryor, 120 F. App'x 497 (4th Cir. 2005)

United States v. Pryor

Opinion

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 04-7447

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

versus

SEBASTIAN A. PRYOR,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Richmond. James R. Spencer, Chief District Judge. (CR-01-149; CA-03-872-3)

Submitted: January 27, 2005 Decided: February 3, 2005

Before LUTTIG and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Sebastian A. Pryor, Appellant Pro Se. Stephen Wiley Miller, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

Sebastian A. Pryor 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 Pryor 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Unpublished