UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 04-6001
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
versus
TERRY LEON ALLRED,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle
District of North Carolina, at Greensboro. N. Carlton Tilley, Jr.,
Chief District Judge. (CR-89-122-G)
Submitted: August 30, 2004 Decided: January 5, 2005
Before WIDENER and NIEMEYER, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judge.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Terry Leon Allred, Appellant Pro Se. Anna Mills Wagoner, United
States Attorney, Greensboro, North Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:
Terry Leon Allred seeks to appeal the district court’s
order construing his post-conviction motion as a motion under 28
U.S.C. § 2255 (2000) and dismissing the 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 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 Allred has not made the requisite showing.
Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the
appeal. To the extent that Allred’s informal brief and notice of
appeal could be construed as a motion for authorization to file a
successive § 2255 motion, we deny such authorization. United
*
By order filed April 20, 2004, this appeal was placed in
abeyance for Jones v. Braxton, No. 03-6891. In view of our recent
decision in Reid v. Angelone, 369 F.3d 363 (4th Cir. 2004), we no
longer find it necessary to hold this case in abeyance for Jones.
- 2 -
States v. Winestock, 340 F.3d 200, 208 (4th Cir.), cert. denied,
124 S. Ct. 496 (2003). 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 -