UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 06-6425
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
versus
JAMES GILBERT BERRY,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western
District of Virginia, at Roanoke. James P. Jones, Chief District
Judge. (5:02-cr-30046-jpj-10; 7:05-cv-00574-jpj)
Submitted: June 15, 2006 Decided: June 20, 2006
Before KING, SHEDD, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Joseph Abraham Sanzone, SANZONE & BAKER, PC, Lynchburg, Virginia,
for Appellant. William Frederick Gould, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES
ATTORNEY, Charlottesville, Virginia, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:
James Gilbert Berry seeks to appeal the district court’s
orders denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000) motion and
subsequent motion to reconsider. 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 any assessment of the constitutional claims
by the district court is debatable or wrong and that any
dispositive procedural ruling by the district court is likewise
debatable. 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, 683-84 (4th Cir. 2001). We have independently reviewed the
record and conclude that Berry has not made the requisite showing.
See 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).
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 -