Filed: Nov. 29, 2005
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 05-7151 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus CURTIS DEAL, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. J. Frederick Motz, District Judge. (CR- 03-250; CA-05-756-JFM) Submitted: November 17, 2005 Decided: November 29, 2005 Before WILKINSON, LUTTIG, and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Curtis Deal, Appellant
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 05-7151 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus CURTIS DEAL, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. J. Frederick Motz, District Judge. (CR- 03-250; CA-05-756-JFM) Submitted: November 17, 2005 Decided: November 29, 2005 Before WILKINSON, LUTTIG, and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Curtis Deal, Appellant ..
More
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 05-7151
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
versus
CURTIS DEAL,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
Maryland, at Baltimore. J. Frederick Motz, District Judge. (CR-
03-250; CA-05-756-JFM)
Submitted: November 17, 2005 Decided: November 29, 2005
Before WILKINSON, LUTTIG, and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Curtis Deal, Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:
Curtis Deal, a federal prisoner, seeks to appeal the
district court’s order denying relief on his motion under 28 U.S.C.
§ 2255 (2000). 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). This standard is satisfied
by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find the district
court’s assessment of Deal’s constitutional claims debatable and
that any dispositive procedural rulings by the district court are
also debatable or wrong. See Miller-El v. Cockrell,
537 U.S. 322,
336 (2003); Slack v. McDaniel,
529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000); Rose v.
Lee,
252 F.3d 676, 683 (4th Cir. 2001). We have independently
reviewed the record and conclude that Deal 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 -