UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 03-6396
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
versus
CHARLES EDWARD CALLIS, a/k/a BJ,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Newport News. Raymond A. Jackson, District
Judge. (CR-00-16, CA-02-111-4)
Submitted: April 17, 2003 Decided: April 24, 2003
Before WIDENER, WILLIAMS, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Charles Edward Callis, Appellant Pro Se. Janet S. Reincke, OFFICE
OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Norfolk, Virginia, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:
Charles Edward Callis 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 § 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, 534 U.S. 941 (2001). We have independently reviewed the
record and conclude that Callis has not satisfied either standard.
See Miller-El v. Cockrell, U.S. , 123 S. Ct. 1029 (2003).
Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the
appeal. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal
2
contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the
court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
DISMISSED
3