United States of America v. Hammoud, No. 03-4253 4th Cir. - 2 - PER CURIAM: Samuel Clive Phillips seeks to…

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 04-6383
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
versus
SAMUEL CLIVE PHILLIPS, a/k/a Jungle, a/k/a
Culture, a/k/a David,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Henry Coke Morgan, Jr., District
Judge. (CR-93-131-2)
Submitted: July 23, 2004 Decided: September 28, 2004
Before WIDENER, LUTTIG, and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Samuel Clive Phillips, Appellant Pro Se. Kevin Michael Comstock,
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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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 --

* The Supreme Court has not made Blakely retroactively
applicable to cases on collateral review. See In re Dean, ___ F.3d
___, No. 04-13244 (11th Cir. July 9, 2004). Moreover, this court
has concluded that Blakely does not impact the federal sentencing
guidelines. See United States v. Hammoud, No. 03-4253 (4th Cir.
- 2 -
PER CURIAM:
Samuel Clive Phillips seeks to appeal the district
court’s order dismissing his motion for a sentence reduction as an
unauthorized, successive 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000) motion. An appeal
may not be taken from the final order in a habeas corpus 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 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, 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 Phillips has not made the requisite
showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and
dismiss the appeal. We also deny Phillips’s motion to recall the
mandate and amend the appeal in light of the Supreme Court’s
decision in Blakely v. Washington, 124 S. Ct. 2531 (2004).* We

-- 2 of 3 --

Aug. 2, 2004) (order), petition for cert. filed, ___ U.S.L.W. ___
(U.S. Aug. 6, 2004) (No. 04-193).
- 3 -
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 --