United States v. Miller ( 2003 )

Filed: March 4, 2003
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 02-7331
(CR-98-4, CA-02-475-7)
United States of America,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
versus
Michael Eugene Miller,
Defendant - Appellant.
O R D E R
The court amends its opinion filed February 12, 2003, as
follows:
On page 2, line 16 -- the reference to “Glenn” is corrected to
read “Miller.”
For the Court - By Direction
/s/ Patricia S. Connor
Clerk
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 02-7331
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
versus
MICHAEL EUGENE MILLER,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western
District of Virginia, at Abingdon. James P. Jones, District Judge.
(CR-98-4, CA-02-475-7)
Submitted: February 6, 2003 Decided: February 12, 2003
Before WILKINS, MICHAEL, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Michael Eugene Miller, Appellant Pro Se. Steven Randall Ramseyer,
OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Abingdon, Virginia, for
Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:
Michael Eugene Miller appeals the district court’s order
denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000) motion. 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 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion 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, 534 U.S. 941 (2001). We have reviewed
the record and conclude for the reasons stated by the district
court that Miller has not made the requisite showing. See United
States v. Miller, Nos. CR-98-4; CA-02-475-7 (W.D. Va. Aug. 1,
2002). Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability, deny
Miller’s motion for appointed counsel, 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
3
materials before the court and argument would not aid the
decisional process.
DISMISSED
4