UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 05-6258
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff- Appellee,
versus
FRANCISZEK PIOTR CETERA,
Defendant - Appellant.
No. 05-6429
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
versus
FRANCISZEK PIOTR CETERA,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeals from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of North Carolina, at Wilmington. James C. Fox, Senior
District Judge. (CA-04-239-F; CR-02-2; CR-02-2-1)
Submitted: November 17, 2005 Decided: November 23, 2005
Before WILKINSON, LUTTIG, and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Franciszek Piotr Cetera, Appellant Pro Se. Ethan Ainsworth Ontjes,
OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Raleigh, North Carolina, for
Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
- 2 -
PER CURIAM:
Franciszek Piotr Cetera seeks to appeal the district
court’s orders denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000) motion
and denying reconsideration. 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 both that the district court’s assessment of the
constitutional claims is debatable or wrong and that any
dispositive procedural rulings by the district court are also
debatable or wrong. 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 Cetera has not made the
requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny Cetera’s motions to
expedite the appeal as moot, 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 -