UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 03-7339
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
versus
UNDER SEAL,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
Maryland, at Greenbelt. Alexander Williams, Jr., District Judge.
(CR-97-193-AW; CA-01-2851-AW)
Submitted: February 27, 2004 Decided: May 28, 2004
Before WIDENER, WILLIAMS, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Under Seal, Petitioner Pro Se. Lynne Ann Battaglia, OFFICE OF THE
U.S. ATTORNEY, Baltimore, Maryland; Barbara Suzanne Skalla, OFFICE
OF THE U.S. ATTORNEY, Greenbelt, Maryland, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:
Appellant seeks to appeal the district court’s denial of his
recharacterized1 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000) motion. 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). To obtain a certificate of
appealability on a claim the district court denied on procedural
grounds, Appellant must also show “‘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)). Upon
review of the materials before the court, we conclude that
Appellant has not made a substantial showing of the denial of a
constitutional right. See Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 336
(2003). 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
1
We note that Appellant’s motion remained pending in the
district court for 20 months after the district court issued its
order recharacterizing the motion without an attempt to withdraw
the motion by Appellant, and that Appellant referred to his motion
as the “Recharacterize[d] 28 U.S.C. § 2255 Motion” when he
supplemented it with additional materials.
- 2 -
materials before the court and argument would not aid the
decisional process.
DISMISSED
- 3 -