UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 03-7610
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
versus
ALANDIOUS T. FELDMAN, a/k/a Tony Rony,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
Maryland, at Baltimore. Andre M. Davis, District Judge. (CR-00-
242-AMD; CA-02-1686-AMD)
Submitted: February 25, 2004 Decided: March 11, 2004
Before WILKINSON, TRAXLER and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Alandious T. Feldman, Appellant Pro Se. Jamie M. Bennett,
Assistant United States Attorney, Lynne Ann Battaglia, OFFICE OF
THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:
Alandious T. Feldman seeks to appeal the district court’s
order denying relief on his motion filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2255
(2000). The order is not appealable 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, 336 (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 Feldman has not made the requisite showing.
Accordingly, we deny Feldman’s motion for a certificate of
appealability and dismiss the appeal. We deny as moot Feldman’s
motion to hold this appeal in abeyance pending the district court’s
ruling on his motion for reconsideration in light of the district
court’s recent denial of reconsideration. 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 -