UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 03-7239
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
versus
RANDOLPH CROCKER, JR., a/k/a Tiny,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Raymond A. Jackson, District
Judge. (CR-95-52)
Submitted: November 6, 2003 Decided: November 20, 2003
Before WIDENER, MICHAEL, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Randolph Crocker, Jr., Appellant Pro Se. William David Muhr, OFFICE
OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Norfolk, Virginia, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:
Randolph Crocker, Jr., seeks to appeal the district court’s
order construing his pleading as a motion under 28 U.S.C. § 2255
(2000), and denying the motion as successive. An appeal may not be
taken from the final order in a habeas corpus 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 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, 537 U.S. 322, ,
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. 2001). We have
independently reviewed the record and conclude that Crocker has not
made the requisite showing.* Accordingly, we deny a certificate of
appealability, deny leave to proceed in forma pauperis, and dismiss
the appeal. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and
*
To the extent Crocker’s notice of appeal and appellate brief
could be construed as a motion for authorization to file a
successive § 2255 motion, we deny such authorization. See United
States v. Winestock, 340 F.3d 200, 208 (4th Cir.), petition for
cert. filed, U.S.L.W. (U.S. Sept. 22, 2003) (No. 03-6548).
2
legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before
the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
DISMISSED
3