UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 04-6348
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
versus
JEFFREY RANDALL BREEDEN,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western
District of Virginia, at Roanoke. Norman K. Moon, District Judge.
(CR-00-20; CA-02-1098-7)
Submitted: April 27, 2006 Decided: May 1, 2006
Before NIEMEYER and MOTZ, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judge.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Jeffrey Randall Breeden, Appellant Pro Se. Alan Hechtkopf, Samuel
Robert Lyons, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Washington,
D.C., for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:
Jeffrey Randall Breeden seeks to appeal the district
court’s orders denying relief on his motion filed under 28 U.S.C.
§ 2255 (2000) and his motion for reconsideration. The orders are
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 likewise debatable. 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 Breeden has not
made the requisite showing. Accordingly, although we grant
Breeden’s motion to supplement his informal brief, we deny a
certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. See also
United States v. Morris, 429 F.3d 65, 72 (4th Cir. 2005) (holding
that United States v. Booker, 543 U.S. 220 (2005), is not
retroactively applicable to cases on collateral review). We
dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions
- 2 -
are adequately presented in the materials before the court and
argument would not aid the decisional process.
DISMISSED
- 3 -