United States v. Beltre , 55 F. App'x 155 ( 2003 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 02-7598
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
versus
WILTON FELIPE BELTRE,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. James C. Fox, Senior
District Judge. (CR-96-197, CA-01-297-5-F)
Submitted: January 16, 2003 Decided: January 24, 2003
Before WILLIAMS, KING, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Wilton Felipe Beltre, Appellant Pro Se. Rudolf A. Renfer, Jr.,
Assistant United States Attorney, Raleigh, North Carolina, for
Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:
Wilton Felipe Beltre, a federal prisoner, seeks to appeal the
district court’s order denying relief on his Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e)
motion and his motion filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000). An
appeal may not be taken 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 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 Beltre
has not made the requisite showing. See United States v. Beltre,
No. CR-96-197; CA-01-297-5-F (E.D.N.C. May 16 & June 13, 2002).
Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the
appeal. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal
2
contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the
court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
DISMISSED
3