United States v. Phillips , 54 F. App'x 150 ( 2002 )


Menu:
  •                             UNPUBLISHED
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
    No. 02-7250
    UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
    Plaintiff - Appellee,
    versus
    EDGAR SPENCER PHILLIPS,
    Defendant - Appellant.
    No. 02-7483
    UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
    Plaintiff - Appellee,
    versus
    EDGAR SPENCER PHILLIPS,
    Defendant - Appellant.
    Appeals from the United States District Court for the Northern
    District of West Virginia, at Wheeling. Frederick P. Stamp, Jr.,
    District Judge. (CR-95-34, CA-01-17-5, CR-95-33, CA-01-16-5)
    Submitted:   December 19, 2002         Decided:     December 31, 2002
    Before WILKINS and KING, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
    Circuit Judge.
    Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
    Edgar Spencer Phillips, Appellant Pro Se. Samuel Gerald Nazzaro,
    Jr., Assistant United States Attorney, Wheeling, West Virginia, for
    Appellee.
    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
    See Local Rule 36(c).
    2
    PER CURIAM:
    In these consolidated appeals, Edgar Spencer Phillips seeks to
    appeal the district court’s orders adopting the magistrate judge’s
    report and recommendation and denying relief on his motions filed
    under 
    28 U.S.C. § 2255
     (2000).       An appeal may not be taken to this
    court from the final order in a § 2255 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 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. 2001) (quoting Slack v.
    McDaniel, 
    529 U.S. 473
    , 484 (2000)), cert. denied, 
    122 S.Ct. 318
    (2001). We have reviewed the record and conclude substantially for
    the reasons stated by the district court* that Phillips has not
    satisfied either standard. See United States v. Phillips, Nos. CR-
    *
    We note that Phillips’ § 2255 motions were successive and
    unauthorized by this court under 
    28 U.S.C. § 2244
     (2000).
    3
    95-34; CA-01-17-5 (N.D.W. Va. July 15, 2002) and Nos. CR-95-33; CA-
    01-16-5   (N.D.W.   Va.   July   17,       2002).   Accordingly,    we   deny
    certificates of appealability and dismiss the appeals. 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
    4
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 02-7250, 02-7483

Citation Numbers: 54 F. App'x 150

Judges: Wilkins, King, Hamilton

Filed Date: 12/31/2002

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 11/6/2024