UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 03-6040
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
versus
WAYNE JOHNSON,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Richmond. Richard L. Williams, Senior
District Judge. (CR-99-119, CA-00-814)
Submitted: April 17, 2003 Decided: April 22, 2003
Before WIDENER, WILLIAMS, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Wayne Johnson, Appellant Pro Se. John Staige Davis, V, OFFICE OF
THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:
Wayne Johnson seeks to appeal the district court’s order
accepting the magistrate judge’s recommendation and dismissing his
28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000) motion. An appeal may not be taken to this
court from the final order denying a motion under § 2255 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); see Miller-El v. Cockrell,
123 S. Ct. 1029, 1040 (2003). As to claims dismissed by a district
court 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 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 Johnson has not
satisfied either standard. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of
appealability and dismiss the appeal. We deny Johnson’s motion to
expedite the appeal as moot. We dispense with oral argument because
the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the
2
materials before the court and argument would not aid the
decisional process.
DISMISSED
3