Case ID: f-appx_57/html/0206-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "PER CURIAM.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Joseph Michael DIXON, Defendant-Appellant.
    No. 02-7948.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
    Submitted March 6, 2003.
    Decided March 14, 2003.
    Joseph Michael Dixon, Appellant Pro Se. Andrew George Warrens Norman, Assistant United States Attorney, Lynne Ann Battaglia, Office of the United States Attorney, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellee.
    Before WILKINSON, MICHAEL, and KING, Circuit Judges.
    Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
   PER CURIAM.

Joseph Michael Dixon seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying relief on his motion filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000). We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Dixon has not made a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right. Miller-El v. Cock-rell, — U.S.-, 123 S.Ct. 1029, 1039-40, 154 L.Ed.2d 931 (2003). Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. See 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c) (2000). We deny Dixon’s motion to file a supplemental informal brief. 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.