UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 06-7055
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
versus
ANTOINE TEAR GILES,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle
District of North Carolina, at Durham. William L. Osteen, Senior
District Judge. (1:04-cr-184-1-WLO; 1:05-cv-00909-WLO)
Submitted: October 31, 2006 Decided: November 6, 2006
Before WILLIAMS, MICHAEL, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Antoine Tear Giles, Appellant Pro Se. Angela Hewlett Miller,
OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Greensboro, North Carolina,
for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:
Antoine Tear Giles seeks to appeal the district court’s
order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and
denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000) motion. 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 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 Giles 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
*
We decline to consider Giles’ ineffective assistance claims
or his challenges to the enhancements to his sentence, raised for
the first time on appeal. See Muth v. United States, 1 F.3d 246,
250 (4th Cir. 1993).
- 2 -
presented in the materials before the court and argument would not
aid the decisional process.
DISMISSED
- 3 -