United States v. Bullock , 51 F. App'x 447 ( 2002 )


Menu:
  •                             UNPUBLISHED
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
    No. 02-6907
    UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
    Plaintiff - Appellee,
    versus
    WILLIAM ANTHONY BULLOCK,
    Defendant - Appellant.
    Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle
    District of North Carolina, at Durham. William L. Osteen, District
    Judge. (CR-00-264, CA-01-1074-1)
    Submitted:   November 12, 2002            Decided:   December 2, 2002
    Before LUTTIG, MICHAEL, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.
    Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
    William Anthony Bullock, Appellant Pro Se.      Lisa Blue Boggs,
    Assistant United States Attorney, Greensboro, North Carolina, for
    Appellee.
    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
    See Local Rule 36(c).
    PER CURIAM
    William A. Bullock seeks to appeal the district court’s order
    accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and denying
    relief on his motion filed under 
    28 U.S.C. § 2255
     (2000).       Bullock
    also moves this court to hear his appeal en banc under Fed. R. App.
    P. 35.    An appeal may not be taken to this court from the final
    order in a proceeding under § 2255 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
    on the merits, a certificate of appealability will not issue unless
    the appellant can make “a substantial showing of the denial of a
    constitutional right.”       
    28 U.S.C. § 2253
    (c)(2) (2000).     We have
    reviewed the record and conclude for the reasons stated by the
    district court that Bullock has not made the requisite showing.
    See   United   States   v.   Bullock,   Nos.   CR-00-264;   CA-01-1074-1
    (M.D.N.C. May 28, 2002). As no active member of the court has voted
    to grant hearing en banc, it is denied.         Accordingly, we deny 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: 02-6907

Citation Numbers: 51 F. App'x 447

Judges: Luttig, Michael, Gregory

Filed Date: 12/2/2002

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 11/6/2024