Court Opinion

ID: 1010399
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2013-07-04 20:11:11.259394+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:36:09.459424
License: Public Domain

UNPUBLISHED

                   UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                       FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                              No. 03-6178

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                                               Plaintiff - Appellee,

          versus

EARL SYLVESTER TURNER,

                                            Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Richmond. Richard L. Williams, Senior
District Judge. (CR-99-119, CA-01-794)

Submitted:   April 24, 2003                    Decided:   May 2, 2003

Before NIEMEYER, GREGORY, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Earl Sylvester Turner, Appellant Pro Se. Richard Barton Campbell,
Sara Elizabeth Flannery, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY,
Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:

     Earl Sylvester Turner seeks to appeal the district court’s

order denying relief on his motion filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2255

(2000).   An appeal may not be taken to this court 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 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 that Turner has not made a substantial showing of the

denial of a constitutional right.    See Miller-El v. Cockrell, 123

S. Ct. 1029, 1039 (2003).   Accordingly, we deny a certificate of

appealability and dismiss the appeal.     See 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)

(2000). 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

                                 2