UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 02-7036
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
versus
DOUGLAS CARL BROFFORD,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern
District of West Virginia, at Beckley. Charles H. Haden II, Chief
District Judge. (CA-01-976)
Submitted: November 7, 2002 Decided: November 13, 2002
Before WILKINS and LUTTIG, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judge.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Douglas Carl Brofford, Appellant Pro Se. Michael Lee Keller, OFFICE
OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Charleston, West Virginia, for
Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:
Douglas Carl Brofford seeks to appeal the district court’s
order denying relief on his petition 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.) (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 Brofford has not satisfied either standard.
See United States v. Brofford, No. CA-01-976 (S.D.W. Va. June 25,
2002). Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and
dismiss the appeal. We deny Brofford’s motion to stay the appeal
and remand the case. We dispense with oral argument because the
2
facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the
materials before the court and argument would not aid the
decisional process.
DISMISSED
3