UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 04-6930
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
versus
MICHAEL RAY SHIFFLETT,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western
District of Virginia, at Roanoke. James C. Turk, Senior District
Judge. (CA-99-822-7)
Submitted: November 30, 2005 Decided: January 4, 2006
Before WILLIAMS, MOTZ, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Michael Ray Shifflett, Appellant Pro Se. Jennie M. Waering, OFFICE
OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Roanoke, Virginia, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:
Michael Ray Shifflett seeks to appeal from the district
court’s order denying relief on his motion filed under 28 U.S.C.
§ 2255 (2000).* Shifflett also sought to have the validity of his
sentence reviewed in light of the Supreme Court’s recent decisions
in Blakely v. Washington, 542 U.S. 296 (2004), and United States v.
Booker, 125 S. Ct. 738 (2005). We have recently held that the
rulings in these cases are not available on collateral review to
prisoners whose convictions became final before Booker was decided.
See United States v. Morris, 429 F.3d 65 (4th Cir. 2005).
The district court’s order denying relief 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).
*
Shifflett filed a motion to dismiss his appeal and later
filed an objection to dismissal of his appeal. In light of his
objection, we deny the motion to dismiss.
- 2 -
We have granted Shifflett’s motion to file a supplemental
brief and have independently reviewed the record, the appeal
briefs, and the Fed. R. App. P. 28(j) materials submitted by
Shifflett and conclude that Shifflett has not made the requisite
showing. Accordingly, we deny Shifflett’s motion for appointment
of counsel, 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 -