United States v. Miller

62 F. App'x 539
Procedural entryThis page is a short order in United States v. Miller. Read the opinion of the Court — 24 F. App'x 165
Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit·Decided May 1, 2003·No. 02-7762·Unpublished

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

William Patrick Miller seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying relief on his motion filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000) . 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) (2000); see Rose v. Lee, 252 F.3d 676, 683 (4th Cir.), cert. denied, 534 U.S. 941, 122 S.Ct. 318, 151 L.Ed.2d 237 (2001) . We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Miller has not made the requisite showing. See Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 123 S.Ct. 1029, 1039-40, 154 L.Ed.2d 931 (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 materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

United States v. Miller, 62 F. App'x 539 (4th Cir. 2003).

62 F. App'x 539 (United States v. Miller) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Miller-El v. Cockrell
537 U.S. 322 (Supreme Court, 2003)
Rose v. Lee
252 F.3d 676 (Fourth Circuit, 2001)
Martinez-Ceballoz v. United States
534 U.S. 941 (Supreme Court, 2001)