Filed: Nov. 30, 2005
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 05-7367 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus THOMAS EDWARD CLEMENT, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Greenville. Margaret B. Seymour, District Judge. (CR-02-1245; CA-05-496) Submitted: November 17, 2005 Decided: November 30, 2005 Before WILKINSON, LUTTIG, and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Thomas
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 05-7367 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus THOMAS EDWARD CLEMENT, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Greenville. Margaret B. Seymour, District Judge. (CR-02-1245; CA-05-496) Submitted: November 17, 2005 Decided: November 30, 2005 Before WILKINSON, LUTTIG, and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Thomas E..
More
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 05-7367
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
versus
THOMAS EDWARD CLEMENT,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Greenville. Margaret B. Seymour, District
Judge. (CR-02-1245; CA-05-496)
Submitted: November 17, 2005 Decided: November 30, 2005
Before WILKINSON, LUTTIG, and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Thomas Edward Clement, Appellant Pro Se. Alan Lance Crick,
Assistant United States Attorney, Greenville, South Carolina, for
Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:
Thomas Edward Clement seeks to appeal the district
court’s order 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 both that the
district court’s assessment of the constitutional claims is
debatable or wrong and that any dispositive procedural rulings by
the district court are also debatable or wrong. 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 Clement
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 -