US v. McLean (4th Cir. 2006)
Federal Circuits, Fourth Circuit (October 20, 2006)
Docket number: 06-6988
Not Published
Not Published
Permanent Link:
http://vlex.com/vid/us-v-mclean-25640747
Id. vLex: VLEX-25640747
Click here to download this article in graphic format (Acrobat Reader)
Document language
Search in this document
Document options
US Code - Title 28: Judiciary and Judicial Procedure - 28 USC 2253 - Sec. 2253. Appeal
U.S. Supreme Court - Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322 (2003)
U.S. Supreme Court - Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473 (2000)
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit - John Hardy Rose, Petitioner-Appellant, v. R. C. Lee, Warden, Central Prison, Raleigh, North Carolina, Respondent-Appellee. John Hardy Rose, Petitioner-Appellee, v. R. C. Lee, Warden, Central Prison, Raleigh, North Carolina, Respondent-Appellant., 252 F.3d 676 (4th Cir. 2001) Petitioner-Appellant, v. R. C. Lee, Warden, Central Prison, Raleigh, North Carolina, Respondent-Appellee. John Hardy Rose, Petitioner-Appellee, v. R. C. Lee, Warden, Central Prison, Raleigh, North Carolina, Respondent-Appellant.
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 06-6988UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versusCLEVELAND MCLEAN, JR., Defendant - Appellant.Appeal from the United States District Court for the EasternDistrict of Virginia, at Norfolk. Robert G. Doumar, SeniorDistrict Judge. (2:90-cr-00105-HCM-TE; 2:06-cv-00081-RGD)Submitted: October 17, 2006 Decided: October 20, 2006Before NIEMEYER, KING, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.Cleveland McLean, Jr., Appellant Pro Se.Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: Cleveland McLean, Jr., seeks to appeal the district court's order denying his 28U.S.C. § 2255 (2000) motion as successive. 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." 28U.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 McLean has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability, deny leave to proceed in forma pauperis, deny McLean's motion to intervene, 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