Filed: Jun. 26, 2003
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 03-6086 GARY M. ALLEN, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Charleston. Sol Blatt, Jr., Senior District Judge. (CR-96-986, CA-00-4016-9-8) Submitted: May 21, 2003 Decided: June 26, 2003 Before MICHAEL, TRAXLER, and KING, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Gary M. Allen, Appellan
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 03-6086 GARY M. ALLEN, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Charleston. Sol Blatt, Jr., Senior District Judge. (CR-96-986, CA-00-4016-9-8) Submitted: May 21, 2003 Decided: June 26, 2003 Before MICHAEL, TRAXLER, and KING, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Gary M. Allen, Appellant..
More
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 03-6086
GARY M. ALLEN,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
versus
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Defendant - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Charleston. Sol Blatt, Jr., Senior District
Judge. (CR-96-986, CA-00-4016-9-8)
Submitted: May 21, 2003 Decided: June 26, 2003
Before MICHAEL, TRAXLER, and KING, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Gary M. Allen, Appellant Pro Se. Robert Hayden Bickerton, Assistant
United States Attorney, Charleston, South Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:
Gary Allen seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying
his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000) motion. An appeal may not be taken
from the final order in a motion under § 2255 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). We have independently reviewed the
record and conclude Allen has not made the requisite showing.* See
Miller-El v. Cockrell, U.S. ,
123 S. Ct. 1029 (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
*
To the extent Allen seeks to raise issues not properly
presented to the district court, we find they are waived. See Muth
v. United States,
1 F.3d 246, 250 (4th Cir. 1993) (holding claims
raised for first time on appeal will not be considered absent
exceptional circumstances).
2