UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 04-7764
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
versus
EMMANUEL UZUEGBUNAM,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Richmond. Robert E. Payne, District
Judge. (CR-96-43)
Submitted: January 28, 2005 Decided: February 18, 2005
Before LUTTIG, MICHAEL, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Emmanuel Uzuegbunam, Appellant Pro Se. Paul Joseph McNulty, United
States Attorney, Alexandria, Virginia, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:
Emmanuel Uzuegbunam, a federal prisoner, seeks to appeal
the district court’s order construing his petition for a writ of
error coram nobis filed under the All Writs Act, 28 U.S.C.
§ 1651(a) (2000), as a second or successive motion under 28 U.S.C.
§ 2255 (2000), and dismissing it for lack of jurisdiction. The
order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a
certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2000); see
Reid v. Angelone, 369 F.3d 363, 368-69, 374 n.7 (4th Cir. 2004).
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, 336-38 (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 Uzuegbunam has not made the requisite
showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and
dismiss the appeal. 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