United States of America v. William W. Kinkella, a/k/a Funk

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 03-7693
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
versus
WILLIAM W. KINKELLA, a/k/a Funk,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern
District of West Virginia, at Wheeling. Frederick P. Stamp, Jr.,
District Judge. (CR-02-14; CA-02-159)
Submitted: March 10, 2004 Decided: March 26, 2004
Before WIDENER, MICHAEL, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
William W. Kinkella, Appellant Pro Se. Robert H. McWilliams, Jr.,
Assistant United States Attorney, Wheeling, West Virginia, for
Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).

-- 1 of 2 --

- 2 -
PER CURIAM:
William W. Kinkella appeals the district court’s denial
of his motion 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
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 his
constitutional claims are debatable and that any dispositive
procedural rulings by the district court are also debatable or
wrong. 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 Kinkella has not satisfied either standard.
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 --