UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 04-6665
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
versus
JOHN MARK PADGETT,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Beaufort. Sol Blatt, Jr., Senior District
Judge. (CR-99-457; CA-02-3287-9-8)
Submitted: November 30, 2004 Decided: January 3, 2005
Before MICHAEL, GREGORY, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
John Mark Padgett, Appellant Pro Se. Mary Gordon Baker, Assistant
United States Attorney, Charleston, South Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:
John Mark Padgett, a federal prisoner, 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 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 both 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 Padgett
has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny Padgett’s
motion for an expanded certificate of appealability* and dismiss
the appeal. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and
*
We note that the district court granted a certificate of
appealability as to the issue of the validity of Padgett’s
conviction in light of Ashcroft v. Free Speech Coalition, 535 U.S.
234 (2002). Because Padgett failed to raise this issue in his
informal brief, we find that it is now waived on appeal. See 4th
Cir. R. 34(b).
- 2 -
legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before
the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
DISMISSED
- 3 -