Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change

United States v. Lanier, 03-6767 (2003)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 03-6767 Visitors: 8
Filed: Dec. 03, 2003
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 03-6767 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus TOMMY WRIGHT LANIER, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Wilmington. James C. Fox, Senior District Judge. (CR-94-25-F, CA-98-88-7-F) Submitted: November 19, 2003 Decided: December 3, 2003 Before WILKINSON and GREGORY, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Dismissed by unpub
More
                            UNPUBLISHED

                   UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                       FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT


                            No. 03-6767



UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                                               Plaintiff - Appellee,

          versus


TOMMY WRIGHT LANIER,

                                              Defendant - Appellant.



Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of North Carolina, at Wilmington. James C. Fox, Senior
District Judge. (CR-94-25-F, CA-98-88-7-F)


Submitted:   November 19, 2003            Decided:   December 3, 2003


Before WILKINSON and GREGORY, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judge.


Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.


George Alan DuBois, OFFICE OF THE FEDERAL PUBLIC DEFENDER, Raleigh,
North Carolina, for Appellant.     Doug McCullough, OFFICE OF THE
UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee.


Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

     Tommy Wright Lanier seeks to appeal the district court’s order

denying relief on his motion filed under § 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 the district court on the merits

absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional

right.”   28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2000).    We have independently

reviewed the record and conclude that Lanier has not made the

requisite showing. See Miller-El v. Cockrell, 
537 U.S. 322
 (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




                                2

Source:  CourtListener

Can't find what you're looking for?

Post a free question on our public forum.
Ask a Question
Search for lawyers by practice areas.
Find a Lawyer