UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 04-6238
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
versus
THOMAS HOUSER, a/k/a Robert Joiner, a/k/a
Thomas Gross, a/k/a Edward Kingman, a/k/a
Tommy King, a/k/a Thomas King, a/k/a Ian
Hopkins, a/k/a Tim Hopkins, a/k/a Timothy
Hopkins, a/k/a Ian King,
Defendant - Appellant.
No. 04-6239
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
versus
THOMAS HOUSER, a/k/a Robert Joiner, a/k/a
Thomas Gross, a/k/a Edward Kingman, a/k/a
Tommy King, a/k/a Thomas King, a/k/a Ian
Hopkins, a/k/a Tim Hopkins, a/k/a Timothy
Hopkins, a/k/a Ian King,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeals from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Newport News. Rebecca Beach Smith,
District Judge. (CR-01-125; CR-02-36; CA-03-41-4; CA-03-42-4)
Submitted: July 12, 2004 Decided: September 17, 2004
Before WIDENER, WILLIAMS, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Thomas Houser, Appellant Pro Se. Robert John Krask, OFFICE OF THE
UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Norfolk, Virginia, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
- 2 -
PER CURIAM:
Thomas Houser 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. 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 Houser 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 presented in the
materials before the court and argument would not aid the
decisional process.
DISMISSED
- 3 -