United States of America v. Barrington Isaacs

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 02-7715
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
versus
BARRINGTON ISAACS,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Charleston. David C. Norton, District Judge.
(CR-98-356, CA-01-2230-2-18)
Submitted: June 19, 2003 Decided: June 24, 2003
Before NIEMEYER, KING, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Barrington Isaacs, Appellant Pro Se. Robert Hayden Bickerton,
Assistant United States Attorney, Charleston, South Carolina, for
Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
Rehearing granted, September 26, 2003

-- 1 of 2 --

2
PER CURIAM:
Barrington Isaacs, a federal prisoner, seeks to appeal the
district court’s orders denying relief on his motion filed under 28
U.S.C. § 2255 (2000), denying his motion for reconsideration, and
denying his motion for relief. 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 for claims
addressed by a district court 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 his constitutional claims are
debatable and that any dispositive procedural rulings by the
district court are also debatable or wrong. See Miller-El v.
Cockrell, 123 S. Ct. 1029, 1040 (2003); Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S.
473, 484 (2000); Rose v. Lee, 252 F.3d 676, 683 (4th Cir.), cert.
denied, 534 U.S. 941 (2001). We have independently reviewed the
record and conclude that Isaacs has not made the requisite showing.
Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the
appeal. We deny Isaacs’s motion for judicial notice. 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 --