Court Opinion

ID: 1009460
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2013-07-04 19:56:25.235318+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:29:12.733212
License: Public Domain

UNPUBLISHED

                   UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                       FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                            No. 02-7607

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                                               Plaintiff - Appellee,

          versus

WALTER JACOB DAVIS, a/k/a Marcus Swanson,

                                             Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of North Carolina, at Raleigh.    James C. Fox, Senior
District Judge. (CR-94-73-F, CA-01-59-5-F)

Submitted:   December 19, 2002            Decided:   January 7, 2003

Before WILKINS and KING, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Walter Jacob Davis, Appellant Pro Se. Christine Witcover Dean,
Assistant United States Attorney, Raleigh, North Carolina, for
Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

       Walter Jacob Davis 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 from the final order in a proceeding

under § 2255 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 reasons would

find it debatable whether the [motion] 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

it procedural ruling.’”    Rose v. Lee, 252 F.3d 676, 684 (4th Cir.

2001) (quoting Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000)), cert.

denied, 122 S. Ct. 318 (2001).         We have reviewed the record and

conclude for the reasons stated by the district court that Davis

has not made the requisite showing.        See United States v. Davis,

Nos.    CR-94-73-F;    CA-01-59-5-F     (E.D.N.C.   Aug.     20,   2002).

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

                                   2