United States v. Grant

U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
United States v. Grant, 122 F. App'x 674 (4th Cir. 2005)

United States v. Grant

Opinion

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 04-7775

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

versus

CLIFTON ANTHONY GRANT, a/k/a Cliff,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Alexandria. Albert V. Bryan, Jr., Senior District Judge. (CR-99-292)

Submitted: February 24, 2005 Decided: March 8, 2005

Before NIEMEYER, WILLIAMS, and KING, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Clifton Anthony Grant, Appellant Pro Se. Michael Edward Rich, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Alexandria, Virginia, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

Clifton Anthony Grant seeks to appeal the district

court’s order construing his “Motion to Dismiss the Case for Lack

of Jurisdiction” as a

28 U.S.C. § 2255

(2000) motion, and

dismissing the motion as successive. The order is not appealable

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 Grant 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Unpublished