UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 05-7106
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
versus
SHAUN KEVIN HARRIS,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern
District of West Virginia, at Elkins. Frederick P. Stamp, Jr.,
District Judge. (CR-00-7; CA-04-6-2-FPS)
Submitted: January 6, 2006 Decided: January 31, 2006
Before MOTZ, KING, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Shaun Kevin Harris, Appellant Pro Se. Robert H. McWilliams, Jr.,
Assistant United States Attorney, Wheeling, West Virginia; Sherry
L. Muncy, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Clarksburg, West
Virginia; Paul Thomas Camilletti, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES
ATTORNEY, Martinsburg, West Virginia, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:
Shaun Kevin Harris seeks to appeal the district court’s
order adopting the report and recommendation of the magistrate
judge and dismissing his petition filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2255
(2000). The 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 (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 Harris
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 -