United States v. Paul , 54 F. App'x 137 ( 2002 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 01-7335
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
versus
XAVIER MARCELLUS PAUL, a/k/a Snap,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Alexandria. James C. Cacheris, Senior
District Judge. (CR-98-192-A, CA-00-1506-AM)
Submitted: December 19, 2002 Decided: December 30, 2002
Before WILKINS and KING, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judge.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Xavier Marcellus Paul, Appellant Pro Se. Morris Rudolph Parker,
Jr., Assistant United States Attorney, Alexandria, Virginia, for
Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:
Xavier Marcellus Paul, a federal prisoner, seeks to appeal the
district court’s order denying relief on his motion filed under 28
U.S.C. § 2255 (2000). 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). 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 movant 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 Paul has not made the requisite showing. See United
States v. Paul, Nos. CR-98-192-A; CA-00-1506-AM (E.D. Va. June 6,
2001). 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
2
materials before the court and argument would not aid the
decisional process.
DISMISSED
3