UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 04-7026
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
versus
STEVEN WAYNE BELL,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. W. Earl Britt, Senior
District Judge. (CR-01-13)
Submitted: August 12, 2004 Decided: August 20, 2004
Before NIEMEYER, WILLIAMS, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Steven Wayne Bell, Appellant Pro Se. Thomas B. Murphy, Assistant
United States Attorney, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:
Steven Wayne Bell seeks to appeal the district court’s
order denying his “Motion for a Directed Appeal.” Our review of
Bell’s motion reveals that it merely repeats arguments he presented
on direct appeal of his conviction and in a prior motion under 28
U.S.C. § 2255 (2000). Bell’s motion is, therefore, a successive
motion to vacate or modify sentence under § 2255 for which Bell has
not received authorization under 28 U.S.C. § 2244 (2000). United
States v. Winestock, 340 F.3d 200, 206-07 (4th Cir.), cert. denied,
__ U.S. __, 124 S. Ct. 496 (2003). 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, 338 (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 Bell 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
- 2 -
contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the
court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
DISMISSED
- 3 -