UNPUBLISHED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Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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