United States v. Burley ( 2003 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 02-7531
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
versus
WILLIE BURLEY,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern
District of West Virginia, at Clarksburg. Irene M. Keeley, Chief
District Judge. (CR-94-59, CA-97-186-1)
Submitted: February 26, 2003 Decided: March 12, 2003
Before MICHAEL and KING, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judge.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Willie Burley, Appellant Pro Se. Thomas Oliver Mucklow, Assistant
United States Attorney, Martinsburg, West Virginia, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:
Willie Burley seeks to appeal the district court’s order
denying relief on his motion filed under Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b)(4)
and construed by the district court as a successive 28 U.S.C.
§ 2255 motion.* To be entitled to a certificate of appealability,
Burley must make “a substantial showing of the denial of a
constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2000). When a
district court dismisses solely on procedural grounds, the movant
“must demonstrate both (1) ‘that jurists of reason would find it
debatable whether the [motion] 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 (2000)), cert. denied, 534
U.S. 941 (2001). Upon examination of Burley’s motion, we cannot
conclude that reasonable jurists would find it debatable whether
the district court correctly denied the motion. 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
*
Burley does not appeal, and therefore we do not address,
whether the court erred in construing his Rule 60(b)(4) motion as
a successive § 2255 motion.
2