UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 04-7555
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
versus
MITCHELL SMALLS, a/k/a Gary Richardson, a/k/a
Cebo, a/k/a Kilo,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Rebecca Beach Smith, District
Judge. (CR-96-131; CA-98-1294)
Submitted: February 9, 2005 Decided: February 15, 2005
Before WILKINSON, MICHAEL, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Mitchell Smalls, Appellant Pro Se. Robert Edward Bradenham, II,
Assistant United States Attorney, Newport News, Virginia, for
Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:
Mitchell Smalls seeks to appeal the district court’s
order construing his motion for reconsideration of his sentence as
a 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000) motion and dismissing it 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)(A) (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 the district court’s assessment of his
constitutional claims is 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 Smalls has not made the requisite showing.
Accordingly, we deny Smalls’ motion for 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