UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 12-7449
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
JAMES EDWARD ROSE, a/k/a Kwali Smith, a/k/a Buck,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Alexandria. Liam O’Grady, District
Judge. (1:07-cr-00503-LO-1; 1:10-cv-01128-LO)
Submitted: January 24, 2013 Decided: February 5, 2013
Before SHEDD and THACKER, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judge.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
James Edward Rose, Appellant Pro Se. Michael Edward Rich,
Assistant United States Attorney, Alexandria, Virginia, for
Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
James Edward Rose seeks to appeal the district court’s
order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West Supp. 2012)
motion. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or
judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C.
§ 2253(c)(1)(B) (2006). 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) (2006). When the
district court denies relief on the merits, a prisoner satisfies
this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would
find that the district court’s assessment of the constitutional
claims is debatable or wrong. Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473,
484 (2000); see Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 336-38
(2003). When the district court denies relief on procedural
grounds, the prisoner must demonstrate both that the dispositive
procedural ruling is debatable, and that the motion states a
debatable claim of the denial of a constitutional right. Slack,
529 U.S. at 484-85.
We have independently reviewed the record and conclude
that Rose has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we
deny Rose’s motion for an extension of time to file for a
certificate of appealability, deny Rose’s motion for appointment
of counsel, deny a certificate of appealability, and dismiss the
appeal. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and
2
legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials
before this court and argument would not aid the decisional
process.
DISMISSED
3