United States v. Jordan

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 03-6768
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
versus
CLIFTON LEE JORDAN,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Florence. Cameron McGowan Currie, District
Judge. (CR-99-795; CA-03-472-4-22)
Submitted: March 31, 2004 Decided: April 16, 2004
Before MOTZ and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judge.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Clifton Lee Jordan, Appellant Pro Se. Rose Mary Parham, 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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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:
Clifton Lee Jordan seeks to appeal the district court’s
order dismissing as untimely his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000) motion.
Because we find that he fails to make a substantial showing of the
denial of a constitutional right as discussed below, we deny a
certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal.
The district court’s order denied Jordan’s § 2255 motion
as time-barred under the Anti-Terrorism and Effective Death Penalty
Act of 1996 (AEDPA). Jordan’s judgment of conviction was entered
August 16, 2000. This court affirmed by an opinion filed November
20, 2001, and a mandate issued on December 12, 2001. See United
States v. Jordan, 2001 WL 1470842 (4th Cir. Nov. 20, 2001) (No. 00-
4606)(unpublished). Jordan filed a § 2255 motion dated January 28,
2003, in the district court. Construing the motion as having been
filed on that date, see Houston v. Lack, 487 U.S. 266 (1988), under
the rule announced in Clay v. United States, 537 U.S. 522 (2003),
the motion was filed within the one-year limitations period. Under
Clay, a federal criminal conviction becomes final when the time
expires for filing a petition for certiorari contesting the
appellate court’s affirmation of the conviction in the Supreme
Court. Clay, 537 U.S. at 524-25. Thus, in light of Clay, we now
find Jordan’s motion was timely filed under the AEDPA.
Jordan may not appeal from the denial of relief on his
§ 2255 motion, however, unless a circuit justice or judge issues a
- 2 -
certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2000). A
certificate of appealability will not issue absent “a substantial
showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C.
§ 2253(c)(2) (2000). A prisoner satisfies this standard by
demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find both that his
constitutional claims are debatable and that any dispositive
procedural rulings by the district court are also debatable or
wrong. See Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 336 (2003);
Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000); Rose v. Lee, 252 F.3d
676, 683 (4th Cir. 2001).
While we conclude that jurists of reason could debate the
correctness of the district court’s procedural ruling, we have
independently reviewed the record and conclude that Jordan has not
made a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.
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
- 3 -