UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 02-7250
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
versus
EDGAR SPENCER PHILLIPS,
Defendant - Appellant.
No. 02-7483
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
versus
EDGAR SPENCER PHILLIPS,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeals from the United States District Court for the Northern
District of West Virginia, at Wheeling. Frederick P. Stamp, Jr.,
District Judge. (CR-95-34, CA-01-17-5, CR-95-33, CA-01-16-5)
Submitted: December 19, 2002 Decided: December 31, 2002
Before WILKINS and KING, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judge.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Edgar Spencer Phillips, Appellant Pro Se. Samuel Gerald Nazzaro,
Jr., Assistant United States Attorney, Wheeling, West Virginia, for
Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
2
PER CURIAM:
In these consolidated appeals, Edgar Spencer Phillips seeks to
appeal the district court’s orders adopting the magistrate judge’s
report and recommendation and denying relief on his motions 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). 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)), cert. denied, 122 S.Ct. 318
(2001). We have reviewed the record and conclude substantially for
the reasons stated by the district court* that Phillips has not
satisfied either standard. See United States v. Phillips, Nos. CR-
*
We note that Phillips’ § 2255 motions were successive and
unauthorized by this court under 28 U.S.C. § 2244 (2000).
3
95-34; CA-01-17-5 (N.D.W. Va. July 15, 2002) and Nos. CR-95-33; CA-
01-16-5 (N.D.W. Va. July 17, 2002). Accordingly, we deny
certificates 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
4