UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 07-6362
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
versus
LEWIS THOMAS CORNELL,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle
District of North Carolina, at Durham. William L. Osteen, Senior
District Judge. (1:00-cr-00204-WLO; 1:06-cv-00916-WLO)
Submitted: May 31, 2007 Decided: June 8, 2007
Before WILKINSON, TRAXLER, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Lewis Thomas Cornell, Appellant Pro Se. Angela Hewitt Miller,
OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Greensboro, North Carolina,
for appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Lewis Thomas Cornell seeks to appeal the district court’s
order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge,
construing Cornell’s motion for reduction of sentence under 18
U.S.C.A. § 3582(c) (West 2000 & Supp. 2007), as a successive 28
U.S.C. § 2255 (2000) motion, and dismissing it for lack of
jurisdiction. 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 Cornell 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 -