United States of America v. Calvin Snuggs

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 03-7021
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
versus
CALVIN SNUGGS,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle
District of North Carolina, at Durham. James A. Beaty, Jr.,
District Judge. (CR-00-214, CA-02-751-1)
Submitted: August 14, 2003 Decided: August 22, 2003
Before WILLIAMS, KING, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Calvin Snuggs, Appellant Pro Se. Steven Hale Levin, OFFICE OF THE
UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).

-- 1 of 2 --

2
PER CURIAM:
Calvin Snuggs seeks to appeal the district court’s order
accepting the magistrate judge’s recommendation to dismiss his 28
U.S.C. § 2255 (2000) motion. Snuggs cannot appeal this order unless
a circuit judge or justice issues a certificate of appealability,
and 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). An appellant meets this standard by
demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find 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, 1039 (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 Snuggs has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we
deny Snuggs’ motion for 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 --