UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 03-7971
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
versus
ROBERT LARRY JEFFREY, JR.,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Henry Coke Morgan, Jr., Senior
District Judge. (CR-98-145; CA-03-252)
Submitted: September 16, 2004 Decided: September 21, 2004
Before LUTTIG, KING, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Robert Larry Jeffrey, Jr., Appellant Pro Se. Janet S. Reincke,
Assistant United States Attorney, Newport News, Virginia, for
Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:
Robert L. Jeffrey, Jr., seeks to appeal the district
court’s orders denying relief on his motion filed under 28 U.S.C.
§ 2255 (2000), and denying his motion for reconsideration. The
orders are not appealable 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 Jeffrey has not made the requisite
showing.* Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and
dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral argument because the
*
After submitting his informal brief, Jeffrey filed a motion
for leave to amend his pending application for a certificate of
appealability asking this court to consider his case in light of
the Supreme Court’s recent decision in Blakely v. Washington, 124
S. Ct. 2531 (2004). Blakely has not been held by the Supreme Court
to apply retroactively to cases on collateral review. See Tyler v.
Cain, 533 U.S. 656, 662 (2001); In re Dean, __ F.3d __, 2004 WL
1534788 (11th Cir. 2004) (holding that Blakely is not retroactively
applicable to cases on collateral review). Therefore, we deny
Jeffrey’s motion.
- 2 -
facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the
materials before the court and argument would not aid the
decisional process.
DISMISSED
- 3 -