United States v. Bonner

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 02-7944
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
versus
ANTHONY BONNER, a/k/a Tone,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
Maryland, at Baltimore. Catherine C. Blake, District Judge. (CR-
98-424-CCB, CA-02-2994-CCB)
Submitted: March 20, 2003 Decided: March 27, 2003
Before WILLIAMS and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judge.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Anthony Bonner, Appellant Pro Se. Christine Manuelian, OFFICE OF
THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:
Anthony R. Bonner, a federal prisoner, seeks to appeal the
district court’s order denying relief on 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). When, as here, a district court dismisses a § 2255 motion
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 [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, 484
(2000)), cert. denied, 534 U.S. 941 (2001). We have independently
reviewed the record and conclude that Bonner has not made the
requisite showing. See Miller-El v. Cockrell, U.S. , 2003 WL
431659, at *10 (U.S. Feb. 25, 2003) (No. 01-7662). 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
2