United States of America v. LEROY SCOTT, JR., a/k/a Roy

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 07-6061
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
versus
LEROY SCOTT, JR., a/k/a Roy,
Defendant - Appellant.
No. 07-6563
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
versus
LEROY SCOTT, JR., a/k/a Roy,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeals from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Henry Coke Morgan, Jr., Senior
District Judge. (2:03-cr-00052-HCM; 2:04-cv-000469-HCM)
Submitted: June 15, 2007 Decided: June 20, 2007
Before WIDENER, MICHAEL, and KING, Circuit Judges.

-- 1 of 3 --

- 2 -
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Leroy Scott, Jr., Appellant Pro Se. Laura Marie Everhart,
Assistant United States Attorney, Norfolk, Virginia, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

-- 2 of 3 --

- 3 -
PER CURIAM:
Leroy Scott, Jr., seeks to appeal the district court’s
orders denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000) motion. The
orders are 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 Scott has not
made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of
appealability and dismiss the appeals. 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

-- 3 of 3 --