US v. Brofford, (4th Cir. 2002)
Linked as:
Text
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 02-7036 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus
DOUGLAS CARL BROFFORD, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern
District of West Virginia, at Beckley. Charles H. Haden II, Chief
District Judge. (CA-01-976)
Submitted: November 7, 2002 Decided: November 13, 2002
Before WILKINS and LUTTIG, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judge.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Douglas Carl Brofford, Appellant Pro Se. Michael Lee Keller, OFFICE
OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Charleston, West Virginia, for
Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM
Douglas Carl Brofford seeks to appeal the district court§ 2255 (2000). An appeal may not be taken to this court 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 a district court on the merits absent a § 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 Brofford has not satisfied either standard.
See United States v. Brofford , No. CA-01-976 (S.D.W. Va. June 25, 2002). Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. We deny BroffordÂ’s motion to stay the appeal and remand the case. 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
Sponsored links
This document cites
- US Code - Title 28: Judiciary and Judicial Procedure - 28 USC 2253 - Sec. 2253. Appeal
- U.S. Supreme Court - Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473 (2000)
- U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit - John Hardy Rose, Petitioner-Appellant, v. R. C. Lee, Warden, Central Prison, Raleigh, North Carolina, Respondent-Appellee. John Hardy Rose, Petitioner-Appellee, v. R. C. Lee, Warden, Central Prison, Raleigh, North Carolina, Respondent-Appellant.
See other documents that cite the same legislation
