UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 03-6982
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
versus
ANTHONY LEE THAMES,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of North Carolina, at Wilmington. James C. Fox, Senior
District Judge. (CR-00-122-7-1-FO, CA-02-56-F)
Submitted: October 1, 2003 Decided: October 17, 2003
Before WIDENER and NIEMEYER, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judge.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Anthony Lee Thames, Appellant Pro Se. Eric Evenson, OFFICE OF THE
UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:
Anthony Lee Thames seeks to appeal the district court’s order
dismissing as untimely his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000) motion. An
appeal may not be taken from the final order in a habeas corpus
proceeding unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate
of appealability. This Court will not issue a certificate of
appealability as to claims dismissed by a district court on
procedural grounds unless the movant can demonstrate both “(1)
‘that jurists of reason would find it debatable whether the
petition [or 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). The relevant inquiry for claims addressed on the merits is
whether “reasonable jurists would find the district court’s
assessment of the constitutional claims debatable or wrong.”
Slack, 529 U.S. at 484.
We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that
Thames has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a
certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. We 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