Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. David BOYNTON, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2004-06-14
Citations: 100 F. App'x 196
Docket Number: No. 03-6808
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, v. David BOYNTON, Defendant—Appellant.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 100
Pages: 196–197

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, v. David BOYNTON, Defendant—Appellant.
No. 03-6808.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted June 2, 2004.
Decided June 14, 2004.
David Boynton, Appellant pro se. N. George Metcalf, Assistant United States Attorney, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee.
Before WIDENER, WILKINSON, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).

Opinion:
PER CURIAM.
David Boynton seeks to appeal the district court's order dismissing as untimely his motion pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000). 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). When, as here, a district court dismisses a § 2255 motion solely on procedural grounds, a certificate of appealability will not issue unless the movant can demonstrate both "(1) 'that jurists of reason would find it debatable whether the petition states a valid claim of the denial of a constitutional right' and (2) '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)). After considering our recent decision in United States v. Sosa, 364 F.3d 507 (4th Cir.2004), and independently reviewing the record, we conclude that Boynton has not made the requisite showing. 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