UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 03-6020
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
versus
MYRON ARVEL WARD,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western
District of Virginia, at Roanoke. Norman K. Moon, District Judge.
(CR-97-40, CA-01-213-7)
Submitted: March 6, 2003 Decided: May 1, 2003
Before WILKINSON, MICHAEL, and KING, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Myron Arvel Ward, Appellant Pro Se. Bruce A. Pagel, OFFICE OF THE
UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Charlottesville, Virginia, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:
Myron Arvel Ward, a federal prisoner, seeks to appeal the
district court’s orders denying relief on his motion filed under 28
U.S.C. § 2255 (2000) and denying his motion to reconsider. 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). 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 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 Ward has not satisfied either standard.
Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the
appeal. See Miller-El v. Cockrell, U.S. , 2003 WL 431659
(U.S. Feb. 25, 2003) (No. 01-7662), at *10. We deny Ward’s motions
to retain the record. 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