UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 03-7794
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
versus
KELVIN ANDRE SPOTTS,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern
District of West Virginia, at Huntington. Robert C. Chambers,
District Judge. (CR-98-47; CA-00-6470)
Submitted: February 12, 2004 Decided: February 25, 2004
Before LUTTIG, WILLIAMS, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Kelvin Andre Spotts, Appellant Pro Se. Ray McVeigh Shepard,
Special Assistant United States Attorney, Charleston, West
Virginia, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:
Kelvin Andre Spotts seeks to appeal the district court’s
order denying relief on his petition filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2255
(2000) and the district court’s order denying reconsideration. 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 Spotts
has not made the requisite showing.
Accordingly, we deny Spotts a certificate of
appealability and dismiss the appeal. We deny Spotts’ motion for
transcripts, motion for expansion of certificate of appealability,
and motion requesting stay of proceedings. We dispense with oral
argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately
- 2 -
presented in the materials before the court and argument would not
aid the decisional process.
DISMISSED
- 3 -