UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 04-6955
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
versus
RICHARD EARL ALLEN,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle
District of North Carolina, at Durham. Frank W. Bullock, Jr.,
District Judge. (CR-00-380; CA-03-297-1)
Submitted: December 17, 2004 Decided: January 13, 2005
Before WILLIAMS, MICHAEL, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Richard Earl Allen, Appellant Pro Se. Robert Albert Jamison Lang,
OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Greensboro, North Carolina,
for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:
Richard Earl Allen, 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 the district court’s assessment of his
constitutional claims is debatable or wrong 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-
38 (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 Allen has not made the
requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of
appealability and dismiss the appeal. We deny Allen’s motion to
consider the merits of an issue raised not in this action but
instead, in a 28 U.S.C. § 2244 (2000) motion. We dispense with
oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are
- 2 -
adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument
would not aid the decisional process.
DISMISSED
- 3 -