United States v. Vandross

• Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
• Decided: September 16, 2003
• Docket: 02-7949
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 02-7949

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

versus

WILLIAM VANDROSS,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Charleston. Patrick Michael Duffy, District Judge. (CR-96-524, CA-00-3513-23-2)

Submitted: September 8, 2003 Decided: September 16, 2003

Before WIDENER, MOTZ, and KING, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

William Vandross, Appellant Pro Se. Miller Williams Shealy, Jr., OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Charleston, South Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

William Vandross seeks to appeal the district court’s order

denying relief on his motion filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000).

We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that

Vandross has not made a substantial showing of the denial of a

constitutional right. See Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 US. 322

(2003). Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and

dismiss the appeal. See 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c) (2000). 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