Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Marcel RANSOM, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2003-07-23
Citations: 70 F. App'x 700
Docket Number: 
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Marcel RANSOM, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before WILKINSON and NIEMEYER, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 70
Pages: 700–700

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Marcel RANSOM, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 03-6428.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted July 2, 2003.
Decided July 23, 2003.
Marcel Ransom, Appellant Pro Se. James Marton Trusty, Office of the United States Attorney, Greenbelt, Maryland, for Appellee.
Before WILKINSON and NIEMEYER, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.
Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
Marcel Ransom seeks to appeal the district court's order denying his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000) motion. An appeal may not be taken from the final order in a motion under § 2255 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 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) (2000). We have independently reviewed the record and conclude Ransom has not made the requisite showing. See Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 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.
To the extent Ransom seeks to raise for the first time on appeal issues not properly presented to the district court, we find they are waived. See Muth v. United States, 1 F.3d 246, 250 (4th Cir.1993) (holding claims raised for first time on appeal will not be considered absent exceptional circumstances).