Case ID: f-appx_80/html/0880-01.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

Bobby HARVEY, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. UNITED STATES of America, Defendant-Appellee.
    No. 03-7031.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
    Submitted Oct. 27, 2003.
    Decided Nov. 19, 2003.
    
      Bobby Harvey, Appellant Pro Se. Brian Ronald Hood, Assistant United States Attorney, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee.
    Before NIEMEYER, MICHAEL, and KING, Circuit Judges.
    Remanded by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
   OPINION

PER CURIAM:

Bobby Harvey appeals the district court’s order denying relief on his 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 certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2000). A certificate of appealability 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, 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 conclude that we cannot determine on the present record whether Harvey filed his § 2255 motion within one year of the date on which the facts underlying his § 2255 motion could have been discovered through the exercise of due diligence. Accordingly, we remand to the district court for further factual findings to determine if Harvey instructed his counsel to file a notice of appeal and, if so, when he could have discovered counsel’s failure to follow such instructions through the exercise of due diligence. 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.

REMANDED.