Case ID: f-appx_57/html/0165-01.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. Albert Shaw NELSON, Defendant-Appellant.
    No. 02-6632.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
    Submitted Nov. 18, 2002.
    Decided March 7, 2003.
    Robert Allen Ratliff, Roberts, Shields, Green, Landry & Ratliff, Mobile, Alabama, for Appellant. Marvin Jennings Caugh-man, Assistant United States Attorney, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellee.
    Before MICHAEL, MOTZ and KING, Circuit Judges.
    Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinin.
   PER CURIAM.

Albert Shaw Nelson seeks to appeal the district court’s orders denying relief on his motion filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000) and denying his motion under Fed. R.Civ.P. 59(e). We have reviewed the record and conclude substantially for the reasons stated by the district court that Nelson has not made a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right. See United States v. Nelson, Nos. CR-95-333; CA-99-4168-5-22 (D.S.C. Aug 1, 2001; Oct. 1, 2001); Boeckenhaupt v. United States, 537 F.2d 1182, 1183 (4th Cir.1976). Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. See 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c) (2000). 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.