UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 05-7085
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
versus
ANTONIO GERARDO DOUGLAS,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Alexandria. Leonie M. Brinkema, District
Judge. (CR-97-184; CA-94-971)
Submitted: November 17, 2005 Decided: November 28, 2005
Before WILKINSON, LUTTIG, and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Antonio Gerardo Douglas, Appellant Pro Se. William Neil
Hammerstrom, Jr., Gavin Alexander Corn, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES
ATTORNEY, Alexandria, Virginia, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:
Antonio G. Douglas seeks to appeal the district court’s
order dismissing as successive his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000) motion.
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 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 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). As Douglas notes, the present motion is not
successive because his prior § 2255 motion was dismissed without
prejudice. See In re Goddard, 170 F.3d 435, 438 (4th Cir. 1999).
However, because the claims in Douglas’ second § 2255 motion are
foreclosed by our decision in United States v. Morris, ___F.3d ___,
2005 WL 295 0732 (4th Cir. Nov. 7, 2005), Douglas has not made the
requisite showing under § 2253(c)(2). Accordingly, we deny a
certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. We dispense
with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are
- 2 -
adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument
would not aid the decisional process.
DISMISSED
- 3 -