United States v. Middleton ( 2003 )


Menu:
  •                             UNPUBLISHED
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
    No. 03-7228
    UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
    Plaintiff - Appellee,
    versus
    DAVID MIDDLETON, JR.,
    Defendant - Appellant.
    No. 03-7346
    UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
    Plaintiff - Appellee,
    versus
    DAVID MIDDLETON, JR.,
    Defendant - Appellant.
    Appeals from the United States District Court for the District of
    South Carolina, at Charleston.   Patrick Michael Duffy, District
    Judge. (CR-98-455, CA-02-3321)
    Submitted:   October 23, 2003          Decided:     October 31, 2003
    Before WILLIAMS, MOTZ, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.
    Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
    David Middleton, Jr., Appellant Pro Se. Miller Williams Shealy,
    Jr., OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Charleston, South
    Carolina, for Appellee.
    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
    See Local Rule 36(c).
    2
    PER CURIAM:
    David Middleton, Jr., seeks to appeal the district court’s
    orders denying relief on his 
    28 U.S.C. § 2255
     (2000) motion and his
    subsequent Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e) motion.       Middleton cannot appeal
    these orders unless a circuit judge or justice issues a certificate
    of appealability, and a certificate of appealability will not issue
    absent a “substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional
    right.”   
    28 U.S.C. § 2253
    (c)(2) (2000).      A habeas appellant meets
    this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find
    that   his    constitutional   claims   are   debatable   and   that   any
    dispositive procedural rulings by the district court are also
    debatable or wrong.    See Miller-El v. Cockrell, 
    537 U.S. 322
    ,         ,
    
    123 S. Ct. 1029
    , 1039 (2003); Slack v. McDaniel, 
    529 U.S. 473
    , 484
    (2000); Rose v. Lee, 
    252 F.3d 676
    , 683 (4th Cir. 2001).          We have
    independently reviewed the record and conclude Middleton has not
    made the requisite showing.     Accordingly, 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
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 03-7228, 03-7346

Judges: Williams, Motz, Shedd

Filed Date: 10/31/2003

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 11/6/2024