UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 02-7583
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
versus
FLOYD SAMUEL WATSON, a/k/a Lloyd Williams,
a/k/a Money, a/k/a A.J.,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Rebecca B. Smith, District Judge.
(CR-93-81-2, CA-02-553-2)
Submitted: December 16, 2002 Decided: December 23, 2002
Before LUTTIG, MICHAEL, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Floyd Samuel Watson, Appellant Pro Se. Michael R. Smythers,
Assistant United States Attorney, William David Muhr, OFFICE OF THE
UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Norfolk, Virginia, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:
Floyd Samuel Watson 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 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)(B) (2000). When, as here,
a district court dismisses a § 2255 motion solely on procedural
grounds, a certificate of appealability will not issue unless the
movant 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 Watson has not made the requisite showing. See
United States v. Watson, Nos. CR-98-81-2; CA-02-553-2 (E.D. Va.
Aug. 30, 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 presented in the
materials before the court and argument would not aid the
decisional process.
DISMISSED
2