UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 03-6493
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
versus
ALBERT CHARLES BURGESS, JR.,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Columbia. Cameron M. Currie, District Judge.
(CR-92-217, CA-02-1002-3-22)
Submitted: April 11, 2003 Decided: June 9, 2003
Before WIDENER and GREGORY, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judge.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Albert Charles Burgess, Jr., Appellant Pro Se. Eric William
Ruschky, Assistant United States Attorney, Columbia, South
Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:
Albert Charles Burgess, Jr., a federal prisoner, 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 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); see Miller-El v. Cockrell, 123 S. Ct.
1029, 1039-40 (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 [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 Burgess has not
satisfied either standard. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of
appealability and dismiss the appeal. We deny as moot Burgess’s
motion to expedite consideration of his appeal and dispense with
oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are
2
adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument
would not aid the decisional process.
DISMISSED
3