United States v. Smith

U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
United States v. Smith, 156 F. App'x 604 (4th Cir. 2005)

United States v. Smith

Opinion

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 05-6797

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

versus

CURTIS ROSS SMITH, JR.,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Spartanburg. G. Ross Anderson, Jr., District Judge. (CR-02-1246; CA-05-862-7)

Submitted: November 22, 2005 Decided: December 5, 2005

Before MOTZ, TRAXLER, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Curtis Ross Smith, Jr., Appellant Pro Se. Alan Lance Crick, Assistant United States Attorney, Greenville, South Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

Curtis Ross Smith, Jr., seeks to appeal the district

court’s order denying relief on his

28 U.S.C. § 2255

(2000) motion.

This 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 findings 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

(4th Cir. 2001). We have independently

reviewed the record and conclude that Smith 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Unpublished