UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 05-6633
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
versus
WILLADEUR ALPHONSE,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle
District of North Carolina, at Greensboro. James A. Beaty, Jr.,
District Judge. (CR-96-108; CA-04-1145)
Submitted: July 27, 2005 Decided: August 5, 2005
Before KING, GREGORY, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Willadeur Alphonse, Appellant Pro Se. Benjamin H. White, Jr.,
OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Greensboro, North Carolina,
for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:
Willadeur Alphonse, a federal prisoner, seeks to appeal
the district court’s order accepting the recommendation of the
magistrate judge and dismissing Alphonse’s motion filed pursuant to
Fed. R. Crim. P. 35(b)(2), which the court construed as a
successive motion under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000), and concluded that
it lacked jurisdiction to consider. Alphonse also appeals from the
district court’s order denying his motion filed under Fed. R. Civ.
P. 59(e). The orders are not appealable 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
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, 683-84 (4th Cir. 2001).
We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that
Alphonse has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny
Alphonse’s motion to proceed in forma pauperis, deny a certificate
of appealability, and dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral
argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately
- 2 -
presented in the materials before the court and argument would not
aid the decisional process.
DISMISSED
- 3 -