UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 05-6164
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
versus
WILLIAM ANTHONY YOUNG,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Columbia. Cameron McGowan Currie, District
Judge. (CR-02-216; CA-04-1562-22)
Submitted: June 13, 2005 Decided: June 24, 2005
Before MICHAEL, GREGORY, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
William Anthony Young, Appellant Pro Se. William Kenneth
Witherspoon, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Columbia, South
Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:
William Anthony Young, a federal prisoner, seeks to
appeal the district court’s orders denying relief on his motions to
reconsider the court’s earlier denial of his motion to vacate
judgment pursuant to 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); Reid v. Angelone, 369 F.3d 363, 367-70 (4th
Cir. 2004). 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 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 (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 Young
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
- 2 -