United States of America v. David Middleton, Jr

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 03-7228
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
versus
DAVID MIDDLETON, JR.,
Defendant - Appellant.
No. 03-7346
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
versus
DAVID MIDDLETON, JR.,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeals from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Charleston. Patrick Michael Duffy, District
Judge. (CR-98-455, CA-02-3321)

-- 1 of 3 --

2
Submitted: October 23, 2003 Decided: October 31, 2003
Before WILLIAMS, MOTZ, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
David Middleton, Jr., 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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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).

-- 2 of 3 --

3
PER CURIAM:
David Middleton, Jr., seeks to appeal the district court’s
orders denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000) motion and his
subsequent Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e) motion. Middleton cannot appeal
these orders unless a circuit judge or justice issues a certificate
of appealability, and a certificate of appealability will not issue
absent a “substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional
right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2000). A habeas appellant meets
this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find
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 (2003); Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484
(2000); Rose v. Lee, 252 F.3d 676, 683 (4th Cir. 2001). We have
independently reviewed the record and conclude Middleton has not
made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of
appealability and dismiss the appeals. 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

-- 3 of 3 --