UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 04-7588
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
versus
RONALD NELSON, a/k/a Ronnie,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of North Carolina, at Fayetteville. Malcolm J. Howard,
District Judge. (CR-94-57-H; CA-97-263)
Submitted: February 28, 2005 Decided: May 19, 2005
Before NIEMEYER and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judge.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Ronald Nelson, Appellant Pro Se. Jane J. Jackson, Assistant United
States Attorney, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:
Ronald Nelson, a federal prisoner, seeks to appeal the
district court’s order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2255
(2000) motion.* 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 Nelson 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
*
The motion was styled, “Petition for Relief Under 28 U.S.C.
§ 1651 and Rule 60(b).”
- 2 -
presented in the materials before the court and argument would not
aid the decisional process.
DISMISSED
- 3 -