UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 04-6297
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
versus
TOY BURTRON MADDEN,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
Maryland, at Baltimore. J. Frederick Motz, District Judge. (CR-
94-440-JFM; CA-04-90-JFM)
Submitted: July 28, 2004 Decided: August 13, 2004
Before NIEMEYER and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judge.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Toy Burtron Madden, Appellant Pro Se. Joyce Kallam McDonald,
Assistant United States Attorney, Baltimore, Maryland, for
Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:
Toy Burtron Madden appeals the district court’s order
recharacterizing his mandamus petition as a second and unauthorized
28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000) habeas motion.* We have reviewed the
record and find no reversible error in the district court’s
procedural ruling. See United States v. Madden, No. CR-94-440-
JFM; CA-04-90-JFM (D. Md. Jan. 21, 2004). Accordingly, Madden
cannot appeal from this order unless a circuit judge or justice
issues a certificate of appealability, and 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 habeas appellant meets this standard by demonstrating that
reasonable jurists would find the district court’s dispositive
procedural ruling is debatable or wrong. See Miller-El v.
Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 326 (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 Madden has
not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate
of appealability and dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral
argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately
*
By order filed February 18, 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 -
presented in the materials before the court and argument would not
aid the decisional process.
DISMISSED
- 3 -