Filed: Sep. 17, 2003
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 03-6724 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus LEROY ELLIS, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia, at Danville. Jackson L. Kiser, Senior District Judge. (CR-94-36-D, CA-03-212-7) Submitted: September 11, 2003 Decided: September 17, 2003 Before WIDENER, LUTTIG, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Leroy Ellis,
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 03-6724 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus LEROY ELLIS, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia, at Danville. Jackson L. Kiser, Senior District Judge. (CR-94-36-D, CA-03-212-7) Submitted: September 11, 2003 Decided: September 17, 2003 Before WIDENER, LUTTIG, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Leroy Ellis, ..
More
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 03-6724
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
versus
LEROY ELLIS,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western
District of Virginia, at Danville. Jackson L. Kiser, Senior
District Judge. (CR-94-36-D, CA-03-212-7)
Submitted: September 11, 2003 Decided: September 17, 2003
Before WIDENER, LUTTIG, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Leroy Ellis, Appellant Pro Se. Anthony Paul Giorno, OFFICE OF THE
UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Roanoke, Virginia, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:
Leroy Ellis seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying
relief on his petition, which the court construed as a 28 U.S.C. §
2255 (2000) 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
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, ,
123 S. Ct. 1029, 1039-40 (2003); Slack
v. McDaniel,
529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000); Rose v. Lee,
252 F.3d 676,
683 (4th Cir.), cert. denied,
534 U.S. 941 (2001). We have
independently reviewed the record and conclude that Ellis 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
