UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 02-7823
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
versus
TOY BURTRON MADDEN,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
Maryland, at Baltimore. J. Frederick Motz, District Judge. (CR-94-
440-JFM, CA-02-3415-JFM)
Submitted: January 30, 2003 Decided: February 5, 2003
Before WIDENER, NIEMEYER, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Toy Burtron Madden, Appellant Pro Se. Joyce Kallam McDonald,
Assistant United States Attorney, Baltimore, Maryland, for
Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:
Toy Burtron Madden seeks to appeal the district court’s order
denying relief on his petition for mandamus relief, which the
district court construed as a successive motion filed under 28
U.S.C. § 2255 (2000). An appeal may not be taken 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)
(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.) (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 Madden has not made the requisite showing. See United
States v. Madden, Nos. CR-94-440-JFM; CA-02-3415-JFM (D. Md. Oct.
28, 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
2
materials before the court and argument would not aid the
decisional process.
DISMISSED
3