United States of America v. Jerjuan Devula Joyner

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 05-7032
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
versus
JERJUAN DEVULA JOYNER,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Spartanburg. Margaret B. Seymour, District
Judge. (CR-02-325; CA-04-2346-7)
Submitted: December 15, 2005 Decided: December 21, 2005
Before MICHAEL and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judge.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Jerjuan Devula Joyner, Appellant Pro Se. Alan Lance Crick,
Assistant United States Attorney, Greenville, South Carolina, for
Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).

-- 1 of 2 --

- 2 -
PER CURIAM:
Jerjuan Devula Joyner seeks to appeal the district
court’s order dismissing his petition filed 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 both that the
district court’s assessment of his constitutional claims is
debatable or wrong 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 Joyner
has not made the requisite showing. See United States v. Morris,
F. 3d , No. 04-7889 (4th Cir. Nov. 7, 2005). 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 --