UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 04-6242
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
versus
DWAYNE STEPLIGHT,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Alexandria. Leonie M. Brinkema, District
Judge. (CR-01-264; CA-03-33-AM)
Submitted: August 9, 2004 Decided: September 8, 2004
Before WIDENER, LUTTIG, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Dwayne Steplight, Appellant Pro Se. LeDora Knight, OFFICE OF THE
UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Alexandria, Virginia, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:
Dwayne Steplight appeals a district court’s order
construing his “motion to vacate plea of guilty and evidentiary
hearing” as a 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000) motion and dismissing it as
successive, noting that Steplight has not obtained authorization
from this court to file such a motion. 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 Steplight has not made the requisite
showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability, deny
leave to proceed in forma pauperis, deny Steplight’s motion for
appointment of counsel, and dismiss the appeal. We dispense with
*
See Reid v. Angelone, 369 F.3d 363, 367-70 (4th Cir. 2004)
(holding that order denying relief under Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b) in
a habeas setting is “the final order in a habeas corpus proceeding”
subject to the certificate of appealability requirement of 28
U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(A) (2000)).
- 2 -
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 -