UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 05-7726
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
versus
GLEN WAYNE STAPLETON,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western
District of Virginia, at Roanoke. James P. Jones, Chief District
Judge. (CR-01-10026; CA-05-541-7)
Submitted: January 26, 2006 Decided: February 3, 2006
Before LUTTIG, WILLIAMS, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Glen Wayne Stapleton, Appellant Pro Se. Eric Matthew Hurt, OFFICE
OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Newport News, Virginia; Steven
Randall Ramseyer, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Abingdon,
Virginia, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:
Glen Wayne Stapleton seeks to appeal the district court’s
order dismissing his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000) motion as a successive
motion for which prefiling authorization had not been obtained, and
a subsequent order denying his motion for reconsideration. See 28
U.S.C. § 2244 (2000). The orders are not appealable unless a
circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28
U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2000); see Jones v. Braxton, 392 F.3d 683, 684
(4th Cir.2004). 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).
We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that
Stapleton 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
- 2 -