UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 03-7666
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
versus
SCOTT ALLEN SMITH,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle
District of North Carolina, at Durham. N. Carlton Tilley, Jr.,
Chief District Judge. (CR-99-49; CA-01-1010)
Submitted: January 28, 2004 Decided: February 17, 2004
Before WIDENER and MOTZ, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judge.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Scott Allen Smith, Appellant Pro Se. Michael Francis Joseph,
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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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:
Scott Allen Smith seeks to appeal the district court’s
order denying relief on his petition filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2255
(2000). 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. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2000). A
certificate of appealability will not issue for claims addressed by
a district court 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
(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 Smith
has not made the requisite showing.*
Accordingly, we deny Smith a certificate of appealability
and dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral argument because the
facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the
*
Smith raises issues regarding error by appointed counsel in
the § 2255 proceeding, bias by the magistrate judge and error by
the district court. However, Smith’s failure to satisfy the
requirements of 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) precludes us from issuing a
certificate of appealability.
- 2 -
materials before the court and argument would not aid the
decisional process.
DISMISSED
- 3 -