Court Opinion

ID: 1011090
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2013-07-04 20:21:55.926995+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:40:41.599587
License: Public Domain

UNPUBLISHED

                   UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                       FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                            No. 03-6671

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                                               Plaintiff - Appellee,

          versus

JOHN EDWARD HOWARD,

                                            Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western
District of Virginia, at Roanoke. James C. Turk, Senior District
Judge. (CR-98-37-6, CA-03-64-7)

Submitted:   July 9, 2003                  Decided:   July 16, 2003

Before WILKINSON, NIEMEYER, and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

John Edward Howard, Appellant Pro Se.   Ray B. Fitzgerald, Jr.,
OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Charlottesville, Virginia,
for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

     John Edward Howard seeks to appeal the district court’s order

dismissing as untimely his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000) motion.        An

appeal may not be taken 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) (2000).    When, as here,

a district court dismisses a § 2255 motion 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 (2000)), cert.

denied, 534 U.S. 941 (2001).    We have independently reviewed the

record and conclude that Howard has not made the requisite showing.

See Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322 (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

                                 2