United States of America v. James Claude Bailey

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 05-7110
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
versus
JAMES CLAUDE BAILEY,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Newport News. Raymond A. Jackson,
District Judge. (CR-00-21)
Submitted: August 25, 2005 Decided: September 2, 2005
Before TRAXLER and SHEDD, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judge.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
James Claude Bailey, Appellant Pro Se. Michael R. Smythers,
Assistant United States Attorney, Norfolk, Virginia, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).

-- 1 of 3 --

- 2 -
PER CURIAM:
James Claude Bailey seeks to appeal the district court’s
order dismissing his motion for resentencing, which the district
court construed as a successive 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000) motion, and
dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. 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 Bailey has not made the requisite showing.
Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the
appeal. To the extent that Bailey seeks authorization in his
informal brief to file a successive § 2255 motion, we deny such
authorization. We dispense with oral argument because the facts

-- 2 of 3 --

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

-- 3 of 3 --