UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 01-6693
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
versus
MAURICE D. ROBINSON,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Henry Coke Morgan, Jr., District
Judge. (CR-98-47, CA-01-49-2)
Submitted: February 20, 2003 Decided: February 26, 2003
Before LUTTIG, MOTZ, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Maurice D. Robinson, Appellant Pro Se. Fernando Groene, OFFICE OF
THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Norfolk, Virginia, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:
Maurice D. Robinson 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 a final order denying relief under
this section 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 (2000)), cert. denied, 534
U.S. 941 (2001). We have reviewed the record and conclude for the
reasons stated by the district court that Robinson has not made the
requisite showing. See United States v. Robinson, Nos. CR-98-47;
CA-01-49-2 (E.D. Va. Mar. 2, 2001). Accordingly, we deny a
certificate of appealability, deny leave to proceed in forma
pauperis, 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