United States of America v. Dennis Elijah Jemison

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 05-6209
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
versus
DENNIS ELIJAH JEMISON,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Jerome B. Friedman, District
Judge. (CR-97-117; CA-01-395-2)
Submitted: May 19, 2005 Decided: May 25, 2005
Before LUTTIG, MOTZ, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Dennis Elijah Jemison, Appellant Pro Se. Janet S. Reincke,
Assistant United States Attorney, Newport News, Virginia, for
Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).

-- 1 of 3 --

- 2 -
PER CURIAM:
Dennis E. Jemison seeks to appeal from the district
court’s order dismissing his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000) motion as a
successive motion for which prefiling authorization had not been
obtained. See 28 U.S.C. § 2244 (2000). The order is not
appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate
of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2000); see Jones v.
Braxton, 392 F.3d 683, 684 (4th Cir. 2004). 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 the district court’s assessment of his
constitutional claims is 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 Jemison has not made the requisite
showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and
dismiss the appeal. We also deny Jemison’s motion for
authorization to file in the district court a successive § 2255
motion. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal

-- 2 of 3 --

- 3 -
contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the
court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
DISMISSED

-- 3 of 3 --