United States v. Chavez-Lopez ( 2002 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 02-7403
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
versus
MIGUEL ANGEL CHAVEZ-LOPEZ,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle
District of North Carolina, at Durham. James A. Beaty, Jr.,
District Judge. (CR-98-318, CA-02-177-1)
Submitted: November 7, 2002 Decided: November 15, 2002
Before WILKINS and LUTTIG, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judge.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Miguel Angel Chavez-Lopez, Appellant Pro Se. Angela Hewlett Miller,
OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Greensboro, North Carolina,
for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:
Miguel Angel Chavez-Lopez, a federal prisoner, seeks to appeal
the district court’s order accepting the recommendation of the
magistrate judge and 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 § 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 § 2555 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. 2001) (quoting Slack v. McDaniel,
529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000)). We have reviewed the record and conclude
for the reasons stated by the district court that Chavez-Lopez has
not made the requisite showing. See United States v. Chavez-Lopez,
Nos. CR-98-318; CA-02-177-1 (M.D.N.C. Sept. 3, 2002). 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