UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 03-7197
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
versus
ANTHONY A. BLAGROVE, a/k/a Tony,
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: July 9, 2004 Decided: July 28, 2004
Before WILLIAMS, TRAXLER, and KING, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Anthony A. Blagrove, Appellant Pro Se. William David Muhr,
Assistant United States Attorney, Norfolk, Virginia, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:
Anthony A. Blagrove seeks to appeal the district court’s
order dismissing his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000) motion as successive.*
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 both 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 Blagrove has not made the
requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of
appealability and dismiss the appeal.
To the extent Blagrove’s notice of appeal and informal
brief could be construed as a motion for authorization to file a
successive § 2255 motion, we deny such authorization. See United
*
By order filed February 5, 2004, this appeal was placed in
abeyance for Jones v. Braxton, No. 03-6891. In view of our recent
decision in Reid v. Angelone, 369 F.3d 363 (4th Cir. 2004), we no
longer find it necessary to hold this case in abeyance for Jones.
- 2 -
States v. Winestock, 340 F.3d 200, 208 (4th Cir.), cert. denied,
124 S. Ct. 496 (2003). 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
- 3 -