United States v. Lutz , 51 F. App'x 477 ( 2002 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 02-7475
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
versus
DANIEL LUTZ,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
Maryland, at Baltimore. Peter J. Messitte, District Judge. (CR-
95-293-PJM, CA-99-366-HMH)
Submitted: November 21, 2002 Decided: December 4, 2002
Before NIEMEYER, WILLIAMS, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Daniel Lutz, Appellant Pro Se. Andrew Clayton White, Lynne Ann
Battaglia, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Baltimore,
Maryland, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:
Daniel Raymond Lutz seeks to appeal the district court order
denying relief on his “Formal Complaint.” This filing was properly
construed as a successive motion filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2255(2000). An appeal may not be taken from the final order in a
proceeding under § 2255 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 § 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. 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 Lutz has not made the
requisite showing. See United States v. Lutz, Nos. CR-95-293-PJM;
CA-99-3663-HMH (D. Md. Sept. 16, 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