US v. McLean

Filing 920061020

Opinion

UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 06-6988

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus CLEVELAND MCLEAN, JR., Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Robert G. Doumar, Senior District Judge. (2:90-cr-00105-HCM-TE; 2:06-cv-00081-RGD)

Submitted: October 17, 2006

Decided: October 20, 2006

Before 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Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000) motion as successive. or judge The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C.

issues

§ 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 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

- 2 -