UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 02-7607
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
versus
WALTER JACOB DAVIS, a/k/a Marcus Swanson,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. James C. Fox, Senior
District Judge. (CR-94-73-F, CA-01-59-5-F)
Submitted: December 19, 2002 Decided: January 7, 2003
Before WILKINS and KING, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judge.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Walter Jacob Davis, Appellant Pro Se. Christine Witcover Dean,
Assistant United States Attorney, Raleigh, North Carolina, for
Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:
Walter Jacob Davis 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 proceeding
under § 2255 unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate
of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (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 reasons would
find it debatable whether the [motion] 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
it 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 for the reasons stated by the district court that Davis
has not made the requisite showing. See United States v. Davis,
Nos. CR-94-73-F; CA-01-59-5-F (E.D.N.C. Aug. 20, 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