UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 05-6555
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
versus
ANTHONY GRANDISON,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
Maryland, at Baltimore. William D. Quarles, Jr., District Judge.
(CR-83-200)
Submitted: August 17, 2005 Decided: September 14, 2005
Before WILKINSON, NIEMEYER, and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam.
Anthony Grandison, Appellant Pro Se. Roann Nichols, OFFICE OF THE
UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:
Anthony Grandison, 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 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
Grandison 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
*
To the extent that the motion was properly brought pursuant
to former Fed. R. Crim. P. 35(a), a review of the record and the
district court’s orders denying the motion and Grandison’s motion
for reconsideration discloses that the appeal is without merit, and
we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. See United
States v. Grandison, No. CR-83-200 (D. Md. Feb. 4, 2005, and
Mar. 14, 2005).
- 2 -
adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument
would not aid the decisional process.
DISMISSED
- 3 -