UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 02-7546
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
versus
STEPHEN JAMES MILLS,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Charleston. David C. Norton, District Judge.
(CR-97-815, CA-02-623-2-18)
Submitted: December 16, 2002 Decided: December 23, 2002
Before LUTTIG, MICHAEL, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Stephen James Mills, Appellant Pro Se. Sean Kittrell, 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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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).
PER CURIAM:
Stephen Miller, a federal prisoner, 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 § 2255 proceeding unless a circuit justice or
judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)
(2000). To be entitled to a certificate of appealability, Mills
must make “a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional
right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2000). When, as here, a district
court dismisses solely on procedural grounds, a certificate of
appealability will not issued unless the Appellant 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
Mills has not made the requisite showing. See United States v.
Mills, Nos. CR-97-815; CA-02-623-2-18 (D.S.C. Sept. 16, 2002).
Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the
appeal.
2
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