UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 08-7206
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
GARRETT DON SMITH, a/k/a/ Garrin David Smith,
Defendant - Appellant.
No. 08-7215
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
GARRETT DON SMITH,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeals from the United States District Court for the District
of South Carolina, at Greenville. G. Ross Anderson , Jr.,
District Judge. (6:04-cr-00466-GRA-1; 6:08-cv-70067-GRA; 6:05-
cv-02932-GRA)
Submitted: October 21, 2008 Decided: October 29, 2008
Before MICHAEL, TRAXLER, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Garrett Don Smith, Appellant Pro Se. Leesa Washington,
Assistant United States Attorney, Isaac Louis Johnson, Jr.,
OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Greenville, South
Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2
PER CURIAM:
Garrett Don Smith seeks to appeal the district court’s
orders denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000) motion,
dismissing his subsequent § 2255 motions as successive, and
denying his motion to amend as moot. 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 in each
appeal and conclude that Smith has not made the requisite
showing. Accordingly, we deny certificates of appealability and
dismiss the appeals. We grant Smith’s motion to amend the
informal brief and dispense with oral argument because the facts
3
and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials
before the court and argument would not aid the decisional
process.
DISMISSED
4