United States v. Budd ( 2003 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 02-7793
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
versus
LARRY J. BUDD,
Defendant - Appellant.
No. 02-7813
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
versus
LARRY J. BUDD,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeals from the United States District Court for the District of
Maryland, at Baltimore. Deborah K. Chasanow, District Judge. (CR-
73-598-M, CR-73-644-M, CA-02-1948-DKC, CA-02-1949-DKC)
Submitted: March 20, 2003 Decided: March 25, 2003
Before WILLIAMS and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judge.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Larry J. Budd, Appellant Pro Se. Daphene Rose McFerren, OFFICE OF
THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Greenbelt, Maryland, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
2
PER CURIAM:
In these consolidated appeals, Larry J. Budd seeks to appeal
the district court’s orders denying relief on his motions filed
under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000). An appeal may not be taken 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). When, as here, a district court dismisses a
§ 2255 motion solely on procedural grounds, a certificate of
appealability will not issue unless the movant 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 Budd has not made the requisite showing. See Miller-El v.
Cockrell, U.S. , 2003 WL 431659, *10 (U.S. Feb. 25, 2003)
(No. 01-7662). We deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss
the appeals. 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
3