Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Shelby PERSON, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2004-02-11
Citations: 87 F. App'x 866
Docket Number: No. 03-4491
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, v. Shelby PERSON, Defendant—Appellant.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 87
Pages: 866–867

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, v. Shelby PERSON, Defendant—Appellant.
No. 03-4491.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted Nov. 21, 2003.
Decided Feb. 11, 2004.
James R. Akers, II, Huddleston, Bolen, Beatty, Porter & Copen, L.L.P., Charleston, West Virginia, for Appellant.
Kasey Warner, United States Attorney, John J. Frail, Assistant United States Attorney, Charleston, West Virginia, for Appellee.
Before WIDENER, NIEMEYER, and LUTTIG, 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Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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:
Shelby Person seeks to appeal the district court's order adopting the proposed findings and recommendation of the magistrate judge and granting relief on his motion filed under 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). A certificate of appealability will not issue for claims addressed by a district court 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, 336, 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 have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Person has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of ap pealability 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
Upon finding that Person's original counsel failed to file a notice of appeal from the criminal judgment, the district court ordered the appropriate relief under United States v. Peak, 992 F.2d 39 (4th Cir.1993): the re-entiy of judgment to permit Person to pursue a timely direct appeal. This wholly rectified the ineffectiveness of Person's original counsel; no further relief was needed to undo the harm caused by that attorney's failure to comply with Person's request that counsel file a notice of appeal. While it is inexplicable that no notice of direct appeal was filed on Person's behalf following the re-entry of judgment by the district court in this post-conviction proceeding, the present appeal from the grant of relief under § 2255 is not the appropriate forum in which issues that should have been raised on direct appeal may be pursued.