United States v. DeBardeleben ( 2003 )


Menu:
  •                              UNPUBLISHED
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
    No. 02-7906
    UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
    Plaintiff - Appellee,
    versus
    JAMES M. DEBARDELEBEN,
    Defendant - Appellant.
    Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western
    District of North Carolina, at Charlotte. Richard L. Voorhees,
    District Judge. (CR-83-50, CA-02-379-3-1-V)
    Submitted:   March 6, 2003                 Decided:   March 14, 2003
    Before WILKINSON, MICHAEL, and KING, Circuit Judges.
    Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
    James M. DeBardeleben, Appellant Pro Se.
    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
    See Local Rule 36(c).
    PER CURIAM:
    James M. DeBardeleben seeks to appeal the district court’s
    order denying relief on his motion to vacate, set aside, or correct
    sentence 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).       When a district court dismisses a
    § 2255 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.), (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
    DeBardeleben has not made the requisite showing.      See Miller-El v.
    Cockrell,      U.S.     , 
    2003 WL 431659
     (U.S. Feb. 25, 2003) (No.
    01-7662).     Accordingly,   we   deny   DeBardeleben’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
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 02-7906

Filed Date: 3/14/2003

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 10/30/2014