UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 03-6832
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
versus
DAVID ALLEN WILSON,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western
District of Virginia, at Roanoke. James C. Turk, Senior District
Judge. (CR-95-6, CA-03-188-7)
Submitted: August 28, 2003 Decided: September 8, 2003
Before NIEMEYER and SHEDD, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judge.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
David Allen Wilson, Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:
David Allen Wilson seeks to appeal the district court’s orders
denying relief on his motions filed pursuant to Rule 60(b) and Rule
59(e) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. We find the court
properly construed Wilson’s filings as seeking relief under 28
U.S.C. § 2255 (2000). An appeal may not be taken to this court
from the final order in a proceeding under § 2255 unless a circuit
justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C.
§ 2253(c)(1) (2000). This court may grant a certificate of
appealability only if the appellant makes a substantial showing of
the denial of a constitutional right. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2)
(2000). When, as here, a district court dismisses a § 2255 motion
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. 2001) (quoting Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473,
484 (2000)). We have independently reviewed the record and conclude
that Wilson has not made the requisite showing. See Miller-El v.
Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322 (2003).
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