Court Opinion

ID: 1010268
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2013-07-04 20:09:10.270908+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:36:08.784586
License: Public Domain

UNPUBLISHED

                   UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                       FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                              No. 01-6944

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                                               Plaintiff - Appellee,

          versus

JAMES EDWARD WILLIAMS,

                                              Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. Malcolm J. Howard, District
Judge. (CR-00-86-H, CA-01-156-5-H)

Submitted:   March 18, 2003                 Decided:   April 18, 2003

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

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

James Edward Williams, Appellant Pro Se. Rudolf A. Renfer, Jr.,
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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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:

     James Edward Williams 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 to this court 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).   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 Williams has not made a substantial showing of the

denial of a constitutional right.    See Miller-El v. Cockrell, 123

S. Ct. 1029, 1034, 1039 (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