United States v. Shorter

U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
United States v. Shorter, 145 F. App'x 421 (4th Cir. 2005)

United States v. Shorter

Opinion

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 05-6710

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

versus

WILLIAM SHORTER, JR.,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Alexandria. James C. Cacheris, Senior District Judge. (CR-98-192-A)

Submitted: September 29, 2005 Decided: October 7, 2005

Before WILKINSON, KING, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

William Shorter, Jr., Appellant Pro Se. Morris Rudolph Parker, Jr., Assistant United States Attorney, Alexandria, Virginia, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

William Shorter, Jr., seeks to appeal from the district

court’s order dismissing his motion filed under

28 U.S.C. § 2241

(2000), as a successive

28 U.S.C. § 2255

(2000) motion for which

authorization had not been obtained. 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 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, 336-38

(2003);

Slack v. McDaniel,

529 U.S. 473, 484

(2000); Rose v. Lee,

252 F.3d 676, 683-84

(4th Cir. 2001). We have independently reviewed the

record and conclude that Shorter 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Unpublished