United States v. Christensen ( 2003 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 03-6645
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
versus
HERBERT SAMUEL CHRISTENSEN, JR.,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Florence. C. Weston Houck, District Judge.
(CR-98-238, CA-00-1116-4-12)
Submitted: June 19, 2003 Decided: June 26, 2003
Before NIEMEYER, KING, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Herbert Samuel Christensen, Jr., Appellant Pro Se. Alfred William
Walker Bethea, Assistant United States Attorney, Florence, South
Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:
Herbert Samuel Christensen, Jr., seeks to appeal the district
court’s order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000) motion.
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). 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);
see Miller-El v. Cockrell, 123 S. Ct. 1029 (2003). 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, 534 U.S. 941 (2001). We have independently reviewed the
record and conclude that Christensen has not satisfied either
standard. 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