UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 02-7658
BRIAN PETER ZATER,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
versus
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Defendant - Appellee.
No. 03-6273
BRIAN PETER ZATER,
Petitioner - Appellant,
versus
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Respondent - Appellee.
Appeals from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Columbia. Dennis W. Shedd and Henry M. Herlong,
Jr., District Judges. (CR-00-626, CA-02-958-3-19, CA-02-958-3-20)
Submitted: May 15, 2003 Decided: May 20, 2003
Before LUTTIG and KING, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judge.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Brian Peter Zater, Appellant Pro Se. Stacey Denise Haynes, OFFICE
OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Columbia, South Carolina, for
Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
2
PER CURIAM:
In these consolidated appeals, Brian Peter Zater seeks to
appeal the district court’s orders denying relief on his motion
filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000).
In No. 02-7658, Zater seeks to appeal the district court’s
order adopting the report and recommendation of the magistrate
judge and dismissing the portion of his § 2255 motion alleging
ineffective assistance of counsel based on counsel’s failure to
file a direct appeal. This court may exercise jurisdiction only
over final orders, 28 U.S.C. § 1291 (2000), and certain
interlocutory and collateral orders, 28 U.S.C. § 1292 (2000); Fed.
R. Civ. P. 54(b); Cohen v. Beneficial Indus. Loan Corp., 337 U.S.
541 (1949). The order Zater seeks to appeal is neither a final
order nor an appealable interlocutory or collateral order.
Accordingly, we deny leave to proceed in forma pauperis and dismiss
the appeal for lack of jurisdiction.
In No. 03-6273, Zater seeks to appeal the district court’s
order dismissing the remainder of Zater’s claims under § 2255. 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. See 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
3
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, 123 S. Ct.
1029, 1040 (2003); Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000);
Rose v. Lee, 252 F.3d 676, 683 (4th Cir.), cert. denied, 534 U.S.
941 (2001). We have independently reviewed the record and conclude
that Zater has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we
deny leave to proceed in forma pauperis, 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
4