United States v. Patterson

51 F. App'x 440

Opinion

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 02-7062

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

versus

CLYDE WALTON PATTERSON,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Spartanburg. Margaret B. Seymour, District Judge. (CR-97-459, CA-00-2546-7-14)

Submitted: November 21, 2002 Decided: December 2, 2002

Before NIEMEYER, WILLIAMS, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Clyde Walton Patterson, Appellant Pro Se. Elizabeth Jean Howard, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Greenville, South Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

Clyde Walton Patterson seeks to appeal the district court’s

order denying relief on his motion filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2255

(2000). Patterson may not appeal from the denial of relief on his

§ 2255 motion 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).

As to claims dismissed by a district court solely on procedural

grounds, a certificate of appealability will not issue unless the

petitioner can demonstrate both “(1) ‘that jurists of reason would

find it debatable whether the petition states a valid claim of the

denial of a constitutional right’ and (2) ‘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.)

(quoting Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000)), cert.

denied, 122 S. Ct. 318 (2001). We have reviewed the record and

conclude for the reasons stated by the district court that

Patterson has not satisfied either standard. See United States v.

Patterson, Nos. CR-97-459; CA-00-2546-7-14 (D.S.C. filed June 13,

2002 & entered June 14, 2002). Accordingly, we deny a certificate

of appealability and dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral

argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately

2 presented in the materials before the court and argument would not

aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED