UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 05-6078
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
versus
CHARLES EDWARD YOUNG,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Greenville. Margaret B. Seymour, District
Judge. (CR-97-128; CA-03-137-6-24)
Submitted: June 22, 2005 Decided: July 20, 2005
Before WILLIAMS and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judge.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Charles Edward Young, Appellant Pro Se. Elizabeth Jean Howard,
OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Greenville, South Carolina,
for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:
Charles Edward Young, a federal prisoner, seeks to appeal
the district court’s order denying relief on his motion filed under
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). 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
*
To the extent that Young attempts to raise issues in his
informal brief that were not properly presented to the district
court, we note that he cannot raise them for the first time on
appeal. See Muth v. United States, 1 F.3d 246, 250 (4th Cir.
1993).
- 2 -
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
- 3 -