UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 02-7557
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
versus
HAROLD SMITH, JR.,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Greenville. G. Ross Anderson, Jr., District
Judge. (CR-85-166, CA-02-2456-6-13AK)
Submitted: January 8, 2003 Decided: February 3, 2003
Before NIEMEYER, MICHAEL, and KING, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Harold Smith, Jr., Appellant Pro Se. William Corley Lucius,
Assistant United States Attorney, Greenville, South Carolina, for
Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:
Harold Smith, Jr., a federal prisoner, seeks to appeal the
district court’s order denying relief on his motion filed under 28
U.S.C. § 2255 (2000) as successive. 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 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.) (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 Smith has not made the requisite
showing. See United States v. Smith, Nos. CR-85-166; CA-02-2456-6-
13AK (D.S.C. Sept. 13, 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