United States v. Under Seal ( 2003 )


Menu:
  •                               UNPUBLISHED
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
    No. 02-7395
    UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
    Plaintiff - Appellee,
    versus
    UNDER SEAL,
    Defendant - Appellant.
    Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
    District of Virginia, at Richmond. Robert E. Payne, District Judge.
    (CR-96-66)
    Submitted:    March 6, 2003                 Decided:   March 13, 2003
    Before WILKINSON, MICHAEL, and KING, Circuit Judges.
    Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
    Under Seal, Appellant Pro Se. Stephen Wiley Miller, OFFICE OF THE
    UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee.
    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
    See Local Rule 36(c).
    PER CURIAM:
    Appellant   seeks    to   appeal   the   district    court’s   order
    dismissing as untimely filed his motion under 
    28 U.S.C. § 2255
    (2000). An appeal may not be taken 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 § 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 motion 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 Appellant has not made the requisite
    showing.   See Miller-El v. Cockrell,         U.S.      , 
    2003 WL 431659
    ,
    at *10 (U.S. Feb. 25, 2003) (No. 01-7662).           Accordingly, we deny
    Appellant’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: 02-7395

Filed Date: 3/13/2003

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 10/31/2014