UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 04-6644
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
versus
CARMICHAEL CANNADY,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
Maryland, at Baltimore. William D. Quarles, Jr., District Judge.
(CR-99-79-WDQ; CA-03-2812-1-WDQ)
Submitted: May 11, 2005 Decided: June 3, 2005
Before LUTTIG, TRAXLER, and KING, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Kevin Michael Schad, SCHAD & COOK, Indian Springs, Ohio, for
Appellant. Jamie M. Bennett, Assistant United States Attorney,
Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:
Carmichael Cannady seeks to appeal from the district
court’s order dismissing 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 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 Cannady 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