UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 03-7117
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
versus
MELVIN ANTONIO BURL,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Robert G. Doumar, Senior
District Judge. (CR-99-176; CA-03-444-02)
Submitted: February 20, 2004 Decided: March 5, 2004
Before WIDENER, WILLIAMS, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Melvin Antonio Burl, Appellant Pro Se. James Ashford Metcalfe,
Assistant United States Attorney, Norfolk, Virginia, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:
Melvin Antonio Burl, a federal prisoner, seeks to appeal
the district court’s order denying his motion filed under 28 U.S.C.
§ 2255 (2000) as untimely. We previously remanded this case to the
district court for the limited purpose of determining when Burl
delivered the motion to prison officials for mailing. See
Houston v. Lack, 487 U.S. 266 (1988) (holding that prisoner’s legal
materials are deemed filed on the date they are deposited with
prison officials for mailing). On remand, the district court found
that Burl delivered his motion to prison officials pursuant to the
“system designed for legal mail” on June 17, 2003, one week after
the expiration of the time limitation provided in the Antiterrorism
and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996 (“AEDPA”). See Fed. R.
App. P. 4(c)(1).
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 absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a
constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2000). A prisoner
satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists
would find both that his constitutional claims are debatable and
that any dispositive procedural rulings by the district court are
also debatable or wrong. See Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322,
- 2 -
336 (2003); Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000); Rose v.
Lee, 252 F.3d 676, 683 (4th Cir. 2001). We have independently
reviewed the record and conclude that Burl 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 adequately presented in the
materials before the court and argument would not aid the
decisional process.
DISMISSED
- 3 -