Rehearing granted, June 17, 2005
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 03-6211
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
versus
EDWARD CALLOWAY, a/k/a Stink,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Henry Coke Morgan, Jr., District
Judge. (CR-92-113)
Submitted: June 18, 2004 Decided: July 8, 2004
Before WIDENER and NIEMEYER, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judge.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Edward Calloway, Appellant Pro Se. Laura Marie Everhart, Assistant
United States Attorney, Norfolk, Virginia, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:
Edward Calloway seeks to appeal the district court’s
orders denying relief on his motion under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000),
and on his motion styled under Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e), but filed
more than ten days after entry of the district court’s order
denying relief on the underlying 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
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 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, 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 Calloway 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
*
Calloway’s challenge to the district court’s denial of his
§ 2255 motion is not timely as to that order. See Fed. R. Civ. P.
4(a); Dove v. CODESCO, 569 F.2d 807, 809 (4th Cir. 1978). In
addition, Calloway has waived appeal of the district court’s denial
of his Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e) motion because he failed to present
argument on the issue in his informal brief. See 4th Cir. R.
34(b).
- 2 -
contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the
court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
DISMISSED
- 3 -