174 FAPPX 155 - United States v. Freeman

                            UNPUBLISHED

                   UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                       FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT


                            No. 06-6074



UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                                            Plaintiff -   Appellee,


          versus


ROBERT LEE FREEMAN,

                                            Defendant - Appellant.


Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Greenville. Henry F. Floyd, District Judge.
(6:04-cr-00156-HFF-1; 6:05-cv-00655-HFF)


Submitted: March 23, 2006                   Decided: March 31, 2006


Before WILKINSON, LUTTIG, and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges.


Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.


Robert Lee Freeman, Appellant Pro Se. Elizabeth Jean Howard, OFFICE
OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Greenville, South Carolina, for
Appellee.


Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:

           Robert Lee Freeman seeks to appeal the district court’s

order granting in part and denying in part his

28 U.S.C. § 2255


(2000) motion.    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 both

that the district court’s assessment of the constitutional claims

is debatable or wrong and that any dispositive procedural rulings

by the district court are also debatable or wrong.     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 Freeman

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 -