United States v. Price

UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 03-6397 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus THOMAS JEFFERSON PRICE, III, a/k/a Thomas Price, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina, at Durham. Frank W. Bullock, Jr., District Judge. (CR-98-104, CA-02-1065-1) Submitted: May 15, 2003 Decided: May 27, 2003 Before LUTTIG and KING, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Thomas Jefferson Price, III, Appellant Pro Se. David Paul Folmar, Jr., Assistant United States Attorney, Greensboro, North Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: Thomas Jefferson Price, III appeals the district court’s order accepting the magistrate judge’s recommendation to dismiss his civil complaint as a successive and unauthorized 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000) motion. We conclude Price cannot establish a basis for appellate relief. Price cannot appeal this order unless a circuit judge or justice issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c) (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). Price must demonstrate reasonable jurists would find that his constitutional claims are debatable, and that the district court’s dispositive procedural rulings are 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 Price 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