United States v. Thomas

UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 02-7643 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus RICHARD A. THOMAS, a/k/a Mark Andrew Taylor, a/k/a Richie, a/k/a Spooky, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Richmond. Robert E. Payne, District Judge. (CR-96-66, CA-01-261-3) Submitted: February 20, 2003 Decided: February 26, 2003 Before LUTTIG and MOTZ, Circuit Judges.* Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Richard A. Thomas, Appellant Pro Se. David John Novak, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). * This opinion is filed by a quorum pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 46(d) (2000). PER CURIAM: Richard A. Thomas, a federal prisoner, 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 § 2255 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 [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 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, 534 U.S. 941 (2001). We have reviewed the record and conclude for the reasons stated by the district court that Thomas has not made the requisite showing. See United States v. Thomas, Nos. CR-96-66, CA-01-261-3 (E.D. Va. Aug. 19, 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