United States v. Joshua

U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
United States v. Joshua, 158 F. App'x 511 (4th Cir. 2005)

United States v. Joshua

Opinion

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 05-6652

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

versus

JERRY GLENN JOSHUA,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Rebecca Beach Smith, District Judge. (CR-02-28; CA-04-531-2)

Submitted: December 22, 2005 Decided: December 29, 2005

Before WIDENER, NIEMEYER, and KING, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Jerry Glenn Joshua, Appellant Pro Se. James Ashford Metcalfe, Assistant United States Attorney, Norfolk, Virginia, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

Jerry Glenn Joshua, a federal prisoner, seeks to appeal

the district court’s order denying relief on his

28 U.S.C. § 2255

(2000) motion. An appeal may not be taken from the final order in

a post-conviction 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 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

(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 Joshua has not made the

requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of

appealability and dismiss the appeal. We grant Joshua’s motion to

file an addendum to his informal brief. 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Unpublished