UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 02-7846
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
versus
LENNORA R. BANKS-DAVIS,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Richmond. Robert E. Payne, District Judge.
(CR-00-65, CA-02-628-3)
Submitted: January 27, 2003 Decided: February 12, 2003
Before WILKINS and NIEMEYER, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judge.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Lennora R. Banks-Davis, Appellant Pro Se. Gregg Robert Nivala,
OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Richmond, Virginia, for
Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:
Lennora Banks-Davis seeks to appeal the district court’s order
denying relief on her motion filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000).
An appeal may not be taken to this court from a final order denying
relief under § 2255 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, 534 U.S. 941 (2001). We have reviewed the record and
conclude for the reasons stated by the district court that Banks-
Davis has not satisfied the standards under § 2253(c)(2) or Rose.
See United States v. Banks-Davis, Nos. CR-00-65; CA-02-628-3 (E.D.
Va. Oct. 4, 2002). Accordingly, we deny a certificate of
appealability and dismiss the appeal. See 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)
(2000). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal
2
contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the
court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
DISMISSED
3