United States v. Nelson ( 2003 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 02-6632
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
versus
ALBERT SHAW NELSON,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Orangeburg. Cameron M. Currie, District Judge.
(CR-95-333, CA-99-4168-5-22)
Submitted: November 18, 2002 Decided: March 7, 2003
Before MICHAEL, MOTZ, and KING, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinin.
Robert Allen Ratliff, ROBERTS, SHIELDS, GREEN, LANDRY & RATLIFF,
Mobile, Alabama, for Appellant. Marvin Jennings Caughman, Assistant
United States Attorney, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:
Albert Shaw Nelson seeks to appeal the district court’s orders
denying relief on his motion filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000)
and denying his motion under Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e). We have
reviewed the record and conclude substantially for the reasons
stated by the district court that Nelson has not made a substantial
showing of the denial of a constitutional right. See United States
v. Nelson, Nos. CR-95-333; CA-99-4168-5-22 (D.S.C. Aug 1, 2001;
Oct. 1, 2001); Boeckenhaupt v. United States, 537 F.2d 1182, 1183
(4th Cir. 1976). Accordingly, we deny a certificate of
appealability and dismiss the appeal. See 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)
(2000). 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