United States of America v. Donte Rolando Harris

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 07-6045
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
versus
DONTE ROLANDO HARRIS,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
Maryland, at Baltimore. William M. Nickerson, Senior District
Judge. (1:02-cr-00381-WDQ; 1:06-cv-03080-WMN)
Submitted: February 22, 2007 Decided: March 5, 2007
Before WILLIAMS, MOTZ, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Donte Rolando Harris, Appellant Pro Se. James G. Warwick, OFFICE
OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

-- 1 of 2 --

- 2 -
PER CURIAM:
Donte Rolando Harris seeks to appeal the district court’s
order construing his pleading as a successive motion filed under 28
U.S.C. § 2255 (2000), and dismissing it 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). 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 any
assessment of the constitutional claims by the district court is
debatable or wrong and that any dispositive procedural ruling by
the district court is likewise debatable. Miller-El v. Cockrell,
537 U.S. 322, 336-38 (2003); Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484
(2000); Rose v. Lee, 252 F.3d 676, 683-84 (4th Cir. 2001). We have
independently reviewed the record and conclude that Harris 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 --