Court Opinion

ID: 1010196
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2013-07-04 20:07:49.689086+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:01:17.934708
License: Public Domain

UNPUBLISHED

                   UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                       FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                              No. 03-6253

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                                               Plaintiff - Appellee,

          versus

BROOKS JAMES TERRELL,

                                             Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Spartanburg. Henry M. Herlong, Jr., District
Judge. (CR-99-610, CA-02-3896-7-20)

Submitted:   March 20, 2003                 Decided:   April 1, 2003

Before WILLIAMS and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Brooks James Terrell, Appellant Pro Se. David Calhoun Stephens,
Assistant United States Attorney, Greenville, South Carolina, for
Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

       Brooks James Terrell 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 denying a

motion under § 2255 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 Terrell

has not made the requisite showing.   See Miller-El v. Cockrell,

U.S.      , 2003 WL 431659, *10 (U.S. Feb. 25, 2003) (No. 01-7662).

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