US v. Garrett Smith

Filing 920081029

Opinion

UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 08-7206

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. GARRETT DON SMITH, a/k/a/ Garrin David Smith, Defendant - Appellant.

No. 08-7215

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. GARRETT DON SMITH, Defendant - Appellant.

Appeals from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Greenville. G. Ross Anderson , Jr., District Judge. (6:04-cr-00466-GRA-1; 6:08-cv-70067-GRA; 6:05cv-02932-GRA)

Submitted:

October 21, 2008

Decided:

October 29, 2008

Before MICHAEL, TRAXLER, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Garrett Don Smith, Appellant Pro Se. Leesa Washington, Assistant United States Attorney, Isaac Louis Johnson, Jr., OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Greenville, South Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

2

PER CURIAM: Garrett Don Smith seeks to appeal the district court's orders denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000) motion, dismissing denying his his subsequent to a § 2255 as motions moot. as The or successive, orders judge are issues and not a A "a

motion unless

amend circuit

appealable

justice

certificate of appealability. certificate of appealability

28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2000). will not issue absent

substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right." 28 U.S.C. by § 2253(c)(2) (2000). that A prisoner satisfies would this find

standard

demonstrating

reasonable

jurists

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). appeal and We have independently reviewed the record in each conclude that Smith has not made the requisite

showing. dismiss

Accordingly, we deny certificates of appealability and the appeals. We grant Smith's motion to amend the

informal brief and dispense with oral argument because the facts

3

and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional

process. DISMISSED

4