The AI workspace for legal professionals
- Legal research with access to more than 1 million sources
- Document automation
- Matter management
- Hosted in the EU and Switzerland
Try it free for 14 days (10 questions/day during trial)
The AI workspace for legal professionals
Try it free for 14 days (10 questions/day during trial)
03-6627•United States of America v. Stuart C. Cole
03-6627Court of Appeals for the Fourth CircuitAug 18, 2003
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 03-6627
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
versus
STUART C. COLE,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western
District of North Carolina, at Charlotte. Richard L. Voorhees,
District Judge. (CR-97-87-V, CA-99-424-3-V)
Submitted: July 18, 2003 Decided: August 18, 2003
Before LUTTIG, TRAXLER, and KING, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Stuart C. Cole, Appellant Pro Se. Jennifer Marie Hoefling,
Assistant United States Attorney, Asheville, North Carolina, for
Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
-- 1 of 2 --
2
PER CURIAM:
Stuart C. Cole, Jr., a federal prisoner, seeks to appeal the
district court’s order denying relief on his motion filed under 28
U.S.C. § 2255 (2000). An appeal may not be taken from the final
order in a § 2255 proceeding 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 for claims
addressed by a district court 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 his constitutional claims are
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, 123 S. Ct. 1029, 1040 (2003); Slack v.
McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000); Rose v. Lee, 252 F.3d 676, 683
(4th Cir.), cert. denied, 534 U.S. 941 (2001). We have
independently reviewed the record and conclude that Cole 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 of 2 --
Connect Omnilex to search the legal corpus from your AI assistant.