Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. James Stanley CALDWELL, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2003-05-06
Citations: 62 F. App'x 68
Docket Number: No. 03-6022
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. James Stanley CALDWELL, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before LUTTIG and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 62
Pages: 68–69

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. James Stanley CALDWELL, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 03-6022.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted April 23, 2003.
Decided May 6, 2003.
James Stanley Caldwell, Appellant Pro Se. Jennifer Marie Hoefling, Assistant United States Attorney, Charlotte, North Carolina, for Appellee.
Before LUTTIG and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.
Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM.
James Stanley Caldwell seeks to appeal the district court's orders denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000) motion and his motion to alter or amend the judgment under Rule 59(e) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. An appeal may not be taken to this court from the final order in a habeas corpus proceeding unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(B) (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). As to claims dismissed by a district court solely on procedural grounds, a certificate of appealability will not issue unless the petitioner 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.) (quoting Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484, 120 S.Ct. 1595, 146 L.Ed.2d 542 (2000)), cert. denied, 534 U.S. 941, 122 S.Ct. 318, 151 L.Ed.2d 237 (2001). We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Caldwell has not satisfied either standard. 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.