UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 03-6446
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
and
ELIZABETH J. SMITH; RICHARD A. JONES, Personal
Representative for the estate of Ethel J.
Swink, deceased; DAVID LUSK; LELAND M. BRYSON;
LYNN B. BRYSON; PAUL B. GOIST,
Parties in Interest,
versus
WILLIAM M. BRYSON, JR.,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Greenville. Henry M. Herlong, Jr., District
Judge. (CR-01-240)
Submitted: June 19, 2003 Decided: June 25, 2003
Before NIEMEYER, KING, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
William M. Bryson, Jr., Appellant Pro Se. Mark C. Moore, Assistant
United States Attorney, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
2
PER CURIAM:
William M. Bryson, Jr., a federal prisoner, seeks to appeal
the district court’s order dismissing without prejudice his motion
filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000), because the direct appeal of
his conviction was still pending. 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). When, as here, a district court dismisses a § 2255 motion
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 Bryson has not made the
requisite showing. See Miller-El v. Cockrell, 123 S. Ct. 1029
(2003). Accordingly, we deny Bryson’s motion for appointment of
counsel, 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
3