Case ID: f-appx_51/html/0447-01.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. William Anthony BULLOCK, Defendant-Appellant.
    No. 02-6907.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
    Submitted Nov. 12, 2002.
    Decided Dec. 2, 2002.
    William Anthony Bullock, Appelant Pro Se. Lisa Blue Boggs, Assistant United States Attorney, Greensboro, North Carolina, for Appelee.
    Before LUTTIG, MICHAEL, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.
    Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
   PER CURIAM.

Wiliam A. Bullock seeks to appeal the district court’s order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and denying relief on his motion fled under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000). Bullock also moves this court to hear his appeal en banc under Fed. R.App. P. 35. An appeal may not be taken to this court from the final order in a proceeding under § 2255 unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of ap-pealablity. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2000). When, as here, a district court dismisses a § 2255 motion on the merits, a certificate of appealablity wll not issue unless the appelant can make “a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(e)(2) (2000). We have reviewed the record and conclude for the reasons stated by the district court that Bullock has not made the requisite showing. See United States v. Bullock, Nos. CR-00-264; CA-01-1074-1 (M.D.N.C. May 28, 2002). As no active member of the court has voted to grant hearing en banc, it is denied. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealablity 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 world not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED.