UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 02-7263
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
versus
GREGORY HOOTEN,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western
District of North Carolina, at Statesville. Richard L. Voorhees,
District Judge. (CR-97-109, CA-00-50)
Submitted: November 7, 2002 Decided: November 14, 2002
Before WILKINS and LUTTIG, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judge.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Gregory Hooten, Appellant Pro Se. Gretchen C.F. Shappert, Assistant
United States Attorney, Charlotte, North Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:
Gregory Hooten seeks to appeal the district court’s order
denying relief on his motion filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000).
An appeal may not be taken to this court from the final order in a
habeas corpus proceeding unless a circuit justice or judge issues
a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(B) (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). 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. 2001) (quoting Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S.
473, 484 (2000)). We have reviewed the record and conclude for the
reasons stated by the district court that Hooten has not satisfied
either standard. See United States v. Hooten, Nos. CR-97-109; CA-
00-50 (W.D.N.C. July 18, 2002). Accordingly, we deny a certificate
of appealability and dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral
argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately
2
presented in the materials before the court and argument would not
aid the decisional process.
DISMISSED
3