UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 05-7288
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
versus
MICHAEL VERTOIN SAUNDERS,
Defendant - Appellant,
and
MICHAEL VERTOIN SAUNDERS,
Petitioner - Appellant,
versus
STEPHEN DEWALT, Warden,
Respondent - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
Maryland, at Greenbelt. Deborah K. Chasanow, District Judge. (CR-
96-204-DKC; CA-05-1366-DKC; CA-05-1558-DKC)
Submitted: October 20, 2005 Decided: October 31, 2005
Before NIEMEYER and SHEDD, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judge.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Michael Vertoin Saunders, Appellant Pro Se. Stuart A. Berman,
Assistant United States Attorney, Greenbelt, Maryland, for
Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
- 2 -
PER CURIAM:
Michael Vertoin Saunders, a federal prisoner, seeks to
appeal the district court’s order construing his petition filed
under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (2000), as a successive motion under 28
U.S.C. § 2255 (2000), and dismissing it for lack of jurisdiction.
The order is 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 Saunders 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
- 3 -