UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 02-7906
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
versus
JAMES M. DEBARDELEBEN,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western
District of North Carolina, at Charlotte. Richard L. Voorhees,
District Judge. (CR-83-50, CA-02-379-3-1-V)
Submitted: March 6, 2003 Decided: March 14, 2003
Before WILKINSON, MICHAEL, and KING, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
James M. DeBardeleben, Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:
James M. DeBardeleben seeks to appeal the district court’s
order denying relief on his motion to vacate, set aside, or correct
sentence filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000). An appeal may not be
taken from the final order denying a motion under § 2255 unless a
circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28
U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2000). When 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, 534 U.S. 941
(2001). We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that
DeBardeleben has not made the requisite showing. See Miller-El v.
Cockrell, U.S. , 2003 WL 431659 (U.S. Feb. 25, 2003) (No.
01-7662). Accordingly, we deny DeBardeleben’s motion for 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