United States of America v. Samuel Earl Fryar, a/k/a Ali, a/k/a Samuel Fryer, a/k/a Samuel Earl Fryer

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 04-7872
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
versus
SAMUEL EARL FRYAR, a/k/a Ali, a/k/a Samuel
Fryer, a/k/a Samuel Earl Fryer,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Alexandria. T. S. Ellis III, District
Judge. (CR-03-491; CA-04-1242-1)
Submitted: February 9, 2005 Decided: February 16, 2005
Before WILKINSON, MICHAEL, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Samuel Earl Fryar, Appellant Pro Se. LeDora Knight, OFFICE OF THE
UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Alexandria, Virginia, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).

-- 1 of 2 --

- 2 -
PER CURIAM:
Samuel Earl Fryar seeks to appeal the district court’s
order denying relief on his petition filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2255
(2000). An appeal may not be taken from the final order in a
proceeding under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000) unless a circuit justice
or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C.
§ 2253(c)(1)(B) (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 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, 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 Fryar 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 --