UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 04-7031
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
versus
CLEVELAND MCLEAN, JR., a/k/a Junior, a/k/a
June,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Robert G. Doumar, Senior
District Judge. (CR-90-105)
Submitted: October 14, 2004 Decided: October 21, 2004
Before MOTZ, TRAXLER, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Cleveland McLean, Jr., Appellant Pro Se. Laura Marie Everhart,
Assistant United States Attorney, Norfolk, Virginia, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:
Cleveland McLean, Jr., seeks to appeal the district
court’s order dismissing his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000) motion as
successive. 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 for claims addressed by
a district court 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 McClean has not made the requisite
showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability, deny
leave to proceed in forma pauperis, grant McLean’s motions to
supplement, deny his motion for default, and dismiss the appeal.
To the extent that McLean’s notice of appeal and appellate brief
could be construed as a motion for authorization to file a
successive § 2255 motion, we deny authorization. See United
States v. Winestock, 340 F.3d 200, 208 (4th Cir. 2003), cert.
denied, 124 S. Ct. 496 (2003). We dispense with oral argument
- 2 -
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 -