Court Opinion

ID: 1012031
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2013-07-04 20:37:58.975532+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:38:57.704994
License: Public Domain

UNPUBLISHED

                   UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                       FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                            No. 03-6767

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                                               Plaintiff - Appellee,

          versus

TOMMY WRIGHT LANIER,

                                              Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of North Carolina, at Wilmington. James C. Fox, Senior
District Judge. (CR-94-25-F, CA-98-88-7-F)

Submitted:   November 19, 2003            Decided:   December 3, 2003

Before WILKINSON and GREGORY, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

George Alan DuBois, OFFICE OF THE FEDERAL PUBLIC DEFENDER, Raleigh,
North Carolina, for Appellant.     Doug McCullough, OFFICE OF THE
UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

     Tommy Wright Lanier seeks to appeal the district court’s order

denying relief on his motion filed under § 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). A certificate of appealability will

not issue for claims addressed by the 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 Lanier 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