United States v. Dorsey

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 05-7256

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

versus

ROBERT STERLING DORSEY, a/k/a Pete Dorsey,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Alexandria. Leonie M. Brinkema, District
Judge. (CR-99-254)

Submitted: April 26, 2006 Decided: May 30, 2006

Before WILKINSON, LUTTIG,1 and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Robert Sterling Dorsey, Appellant Pro Se. Sonya LaGene Sacks,
OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Alexandria, Virginia, for
Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).

1
Judge Luttig was a member of the original panel but did not
participate in this decision. This opinion is filed by a quorum of
the panel pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 46(d).
PER CURIAM:

Robert Sterling Dorsey seeks to appeal the district

court’s order dismissing his motion filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2255

(2000).2 An appeal may not be taken from the final order in a

§ 2255 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 his

constitutional claims are 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 Dorsey 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
The district court recharacterized Dorsey’s paper entitled
“motion to amend sentence” as a “motion to correct sentence,”
presumably brought pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000).

- 2 -