UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 05-6674
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
versus
ARTHUR W. PRIVOTT, a/k/a Big Bud,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of North Carolina, at Elizabeth City. Terrence W. Boyle,
District Judge. (CR-98-5; CA-99-73)
Submitted: November 30, 2005 Decided: December 15, 2005
Before NIEMEYER, LUTTIG, and KING, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Arthur W. Privott, Appellant Pro Se. Fenita Morris Shepard, 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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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).
PER CURIAM:
Arthur W. Privott seeks to appeal the district court’s
order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000) motion after
remand by this court. This 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 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 Privott has not made the requisite
showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability, deny
Privott’s motion for appointment of counsel, 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
- 2 -