United States of America v. United States, 1 F.3d 246, 250 4th Cir. 1993 . PER CURIAM: Jerry Industrious seeks…

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 04-6307
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
versus
JERRY INDUSTRIOUS,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle
District of North Carolina, at Durham. N. Carlton Tilley, Jr.,
Chief District Judge. (CR-00-20; CA-02-679)
Submitted: August 26, 2004 Decided: September 1, 2004
Before WIDENER and SHEDD, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judge.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Jerry Industrious, Appellant Pro Se. Sandra Jane Hairston,
Assistant United States Attorney, Greensboro, North Carolina, for
Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).

-- 1 of 2 --

*To the extent that Industrious attempts to raise issues in
his informal brief that were not properly presented to the district
court, we note that he cannot raise them for the first time on
appeal. See Muth v. United States, 1 F.3d 246, 250 (4th Cir.
1993).
PER CURIAM:
Jerry Industrious seeks to appeal the district court’s
order accepting the magistrate judge’s recommendation to deny
relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000) motion. 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 that
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 Industrious 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 --