UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

Plaintiff-Appellee,

v.  No. 02-6123

CURTIS SIFFORD,

Defendant-Appellant. 

On Remand from the United States Supreme Court.

(S. Ct. No. 01-10898)

Submitted: July 23, 2003

Decided: August 18, 2003

Before MICHAEL and MOTZ, Circuit Judges, and

HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. 

COUNSEL

Curtis Sifford, Appellant Pro Se. Gretchen C.F. Shappert, Assistant

United States Attorney, Charlotte, North Carolina, for Appellee. 

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See

Local Rule 36(c). 
OPINION

PER CURIAM: 

This case is on remand from the United States Supreme Court for

"further consideration in light of Clay v. United States," 537 U.S. 522,

123 S. Ct. 1072 (2003). Curtis Sifford seeks to appeal the district

court’s order denying relief on his motion filed under 28 U.S.C.

§ 2255 (2000). Because we find that he fails to make a substantial

showing of the denial of a constitutional right as discussed below, we

deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. 

The district court’s order denied Sifford’s § 2255 motion as timebarred under the AEDPA. Under prevailing Fourth Circuit caselaw at

that time, Sifford’s conviction was considered final as of the time this

court issued its mandate affirming the conviction. See United States

v. Torres, 211 F.3d 836, 839 (4th Cir. 2000). The Supreme Court

abrogated the rule announced in Torres in its recent opinion in Clay,

and held that a federal criminal conviction becomes final when the

time expires for filing a petition for certiorari contesting the appellate

court’s affirmation of the conviction in the Supreme Court. Clay, 123

S. Ct. at 1079. Thus, in light of Clay, we now find that Sifford’s

motion was timely filed under the AEDPA. 

Sifford may not appeal from the denial of relief on his § 2255

motion, however, 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 both 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, 1040

(2003); Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000); Rose v. Lee,

252 F.3d 676, 683 (4th Cir.), cert. denied, 534 U.S. 941 (2001). 

While we conclude that jurists of reason could debate the correctness of the district court’s procedural ruling, we have independently

reviewed the record and conclude that Sifford has not made a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right. Accordingly, we

2 UNITED STATES v. SIFFORD
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

UNITED STATES v. SIFFORD 3