Case ID: f-appx_97/html/0452-01.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. UNDER SEAL, Defendant—Appellant.
    No. 03-7339.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
    Submitted: Feb. 27, 2004.
    Decided: May 28, 2004.
    Under Seal, Petitioner pro se.
    Lynne Ann Battaglia, Office of the U.S. Attorney, Baltimore, Maryland; Barbara Suzanne Skalla, Office of the U.S. Attorney, Greenbelt, Maryland, for Appellee.
    Before WIDENER, WILLIAMS, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.
    Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).
   PER CURIAM:

Appellant seeks to appeal the district court’s denial of his recharacterized 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000) motion. An appeal may not be taken from the final order in a § 2255 proceeding unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certifícate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2258(c)(1) (2000). A certificate of appealability will not issue for claims addressed by a district court on the merits absent a “substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2). To obtain a certificate of appealability on a claim the district court denied on procedural grounds, Appellant must also show “‘that jurists of reason would find it debatable whether the district court was correct in its procedural ruling.’ ” Rose v. Lee, 252 F.3d 676, 684 (4th Cir.2001) (quoting Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484, 120 S.Ct. 1595, 146 L.Ed.2d 542 (2000)). Upon review of the materials before the court, we conclude that Appellant has not made a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right. See Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 336, 123 S.Ct. 1029, 154 L.Ed.2d 931 (2003). Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability 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 
      
      . We note that Appellant’s motion remained pending in the district court for 20 months after the district court issued its order recharacterizing the motion without an attempt to withdraw the motion by Appellant, and that Appellant referred to his motion as the "Re-characterize[d] 28 U.S.C. § 2255 Motion” when he supplemented it with additional materials.