Court Opinion

ID: 1009953
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2013-07-04 20:04:19.322253+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:17:46.168451
License: Public Domain

UNPUBLISHED

                   UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                       FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                              No. 02-7395

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                                               Plaintiff - Appellee,

          versus

UNDER SEAL,

                                              Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Richmond. Robert E. Payne, District Judge.
(CR-96-66)

Submitted:    March 6, 2003                 Decided:   March 13, 2003

Before WILKINSON, MICHAEL, and KING, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Under Seal, Appellant Pro Se. Stephen Wiley Miller, 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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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:

     Appellant   seeks    to   appeal   the   district    court’s   order

dismissing as untimely filed his motion 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).         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 reason 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 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 Appellant has not made the requisite

showing.   See Miller-El v. Cockrell,         U.S.      , 2003 WL 431659,

at *10 (U.S. Feb. 25, 2003) (No. 01-7662).           Accordingly, we deny

Appellant’s motion for 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