United States v. Patterson , 51 F. App'x 440 ( 2002 )


Menu:
  •                             UNPUBLISHED
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
    No. 02-7062
    UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
    Plaintiff - Appellee,
    versus
    CLYDE WALTON PATTERSON,
    Defendant - Appellant.
    Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
    South Carolina, at Spartanburg.   Margaret B. Seymour, District
    Judge. (CR-97-459, CA-00-2546-7-14)
    Submitted:   November 21, 2002            Decided:   December 2, 2002
    Before NIEMEYER, WILLIAMS, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges.
    Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
    Clyde Walton Patterson, Appellant Pro Se. Elizabeth Jean Howard,
    OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Greenville, South Carolina,
    for Appellee.
    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
    See Local Rule 36(c).
    PER CURIAM:
    Clyde Walton Patterson seeks to appeal the district court’s
    order denying relief on his motion filed under 
    28 U.S.C. § 2255
    (2000).    Patterson may not appeal from the denial of relief on his
    §   2255   motion   unless   a   circuit    justice    or   judge    issues    a
    certificate of appealability.       
    28 U.S.C. § 2253
    (c)(1) (2000).             A
    certificate of appealability will not issue for claims addressed by
    a district court on the merits absent “a substantial showing of the
    denial of a constitutional right.”         
    28 U.S.C. § 2253
    (c)(2) (2000).
    As to claims dismissed by a district court 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.)
    (quoting Slack v. McDaniel, 
    529 U.S. 473
    , 484 (2000)), cert.
    denied, 
    122 S. Ct. 318
     (2001).           We have reviewed the record and
    conclude   for   the   reasons   stated    by   the    district     court   that
    Patterson has not satisfied either standard.           See United States v.
    Patterson, Nos. CR-97-459; CA-00-2546-7-14 (D.S.C. filed June 13,
    2002 & entered June 14, 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
    2
    presented in the materials before the court and argument would not
    aid the decisional process.
    DISMISSED
    3
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 02-7062

Citation Numbers: 51 F. App'x 440

Filed Date: 12/2/2002

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 10/30/2014