Case ID: f-appx_104/html/0316-01.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. Emmett Madison GRAHAM, Jr., Defendant-Appellant.
    Nos. 04-6430, 04-6807.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
    Submitted: July 26, 2004.
    Decided: Aug. 10, 2004.
    Emmett Madison Graham, Jr., Appellant pro se.
    Michael Gordon, James, Assistant United States Attorney, Paul Martin Newby, Office of the United States Attorney, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee.
    Before LUTTIG and MOTZ, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.
   PER CURIAM:

Emmett Madison Graham, Jr., seeks to appeal the district court’s orders denying relief on his motion filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000), denying a certificate of ap-pealability, and denying a motion for return of property in a criminal case. An appeal may not be taken from the final order in a habeas corpus proceeding unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2000). A certificate of ap-pealability 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 his constitutional claims are debatable and that any dispositive procedural rulings by the district court are also debatable or wrong. See Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 336, 123 S.Ct. 1029, 154 L.Ed.2d 931 (2003); Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484, 120 S.Ct. 1595, 146 L.Ed.2d 542 (2000); Rose v. Lee, 252 F.3d 676, 683 (4th Cir.2001). We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Graham has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny Graham’s motion for a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal in 04-6430. The district court order appealed from in 04-6807, regarding the motion for return of property in a criminal case, is affirmed. The district court properly denied Graham’s motion for return of property because the issue was previously decided by the district court and is pending on 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.

No. 04-6430 DISMISSED

No. 04-6807 AFFIRMED