Douglas v. United States

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 04-7778

MAURICE CALVIN DOUGLAS, JR.,

Petitioner - Appellant,

versus

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Richmond. Robert E. Payne, District
Judge. (CA-04-530)

Submitted: January 13, 2005 Decided: January 21, 2005

Before WIDENER, NIEMEYER, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Maurice Calvin Douglas, Jr., Appellant Pro Se. Michael Steven Dry,
OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Richmond, Virginia, for
Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:

Maurice Calvin Douglas, Jr., a federal prisoner, seeks to

appeal the district court’s order denying his motion filed under 28

U.S.C. § 2255 (2000) as untimely under the Antiterrorism and

Effective Death Penalty Act. 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, 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 Douglas 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

- 2 -