UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 02-6907
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
versus
WILLIAM ANTHONY BULLOCK,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle
District of North Carolina, at Durham. William L. Osteen, District
Judge. (CR-00-264, CA-01-1074-1)
Submitted: November 12, 2002 Decided: December 2, 2002
Before LUTTIG, MICHAEL, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
William Anthony Bullock, Appellant Pro Se. Lisa Blue Boggs,
Assistant United States Attorney, Greensboro, North Carolina, for
Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM
William A. Bullock seeks to appeal the district court’s order
accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and denying
relief on his motion filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000). Bullock
also moves this court to hear his appeal en banc under Fed. R. App.
P. 35. 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). When, as here, a district court dismisses a § 2255 motion
on the merits, a certificate of appealability will not issue unless
the appellant can make “a substantial showing of the denial of a
constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2000). We have
reviewed the record and conclude for the reasons stated by the
district court that Bullock has not made the requisite showing.
See United States v. Bullock, Nos. CR-00-264; CA-01-1074-1
(M.D.N.C. May 28, 2002). As no active member of the court has voted
to grant hearing en banc, it is denied. 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