UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 05-7772
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
versus
CHARLES ONWUAZOMBE, a/k/a Ebele Onwuazor,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
Maryland, at Baltimore. J. Frederick Motz, District Judge. (CR-
91-305-JFM; CA-05-2856-1-JFM)
Submitted: March 30, 2006 Decided: April 7, 2006
Before TRAXLER, GREGORY, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed in part; dismissed in part by unpublished per curiam
opinion.
Charles Onwuazombe, Appellant Pro Se. Robert Reeves Harding,
Assistant United States Attorney, Baltimore, Maryland, for
Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:
Charles Onwuazombe, a federal prisoner, seeks to appeal
the district court’s order denying relief on his motion construed
as filed under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c) (2000) and 28 U.S.C. § 2255
(2000). We affirm the portion of the district court’s order
denying 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c) relief for the reasons stated by the
district court. See United States v. Onwuazombe, Nos. CR-91-305-
JFM; CA-05-2856-1-JFM (D. Md. filed Oct. 18 & entered Oct. 19,
2005). To the extent that Onwuazombe sought to file a 28 U.S.C.
§ 2255 (2000) motion, an appeal may not be taken from the final
order in a post-conviction 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 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 (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
Onwuazombe has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we
deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal of the
- 2 -
denial of 28 U.S.C. § 2255 relief. 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.
AFFIRMED IN PART;
DISMISSED IN PART
- 3 -