UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 04-6648
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
versus
GARY LEE BEATTY,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of North Carolina, at Wilmington. James C. Fox, Senior
District Judge. (CR-01-86; CA-04-17-7-F)
Submitted: July 29, 2004 Decided: August 5, 2004
Before LUTTIG, MICHAEL, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Gary Lee Beatty, Appellant Pro Se. Paul Joseph McNulty, United
States Attorney, Alexandria, Virginia, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:
Gary Lee Beatty seeks to appeal the district court’s
order denying relief on his motion 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 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 Beatty has not made the requisite showing.
Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the
appeal. We deny Beatty’s motion for an enlargement of time to
amend his § 2255 motion to raise a claim under Blakely v.
Washington, ___ U.S. ___, 2004 WL 1402697 (U.S. June 24, 2004),
because Blakely does not apply in the § 2255 context. See
generally Teague v. Lane, 489 U.S. 288, 311 (1989); United
States v. Sanders, 247 F.3d 139, 148 (4th Cir. 2001). We dispense
with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are
- 2 -
adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument
would not aid the decisional process.
DISMISSED
- 3 -