UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 02-7442
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
versus
JAMES M. DEBARDELEBEN,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
Maryland, at Baltimore. Walter E. Black, Jr., Senior District
Judge. (CR-84-43-B, CA-02-2354-B)
Submitted: January 16, 2003 Decided: March 25, 2003
Before WILLIAMS, KING, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
James M. DeBardeleben, Appellant Pro Se. Juliet Ann Eurich, Tarra
R. DeShields-Minnis, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY,
Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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, as here, 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, 122 S. Ct. 318 (2001). We have reviewed the record and
conclude for the reasons stated by the district court that
DeBardeleben has not made the requisite showing. See United States
v. DeBardeleben, Nos. CR-84-43-B; CA-02-2354-B (D. Md. July 26,
2002). Accordingly, we deny DeBardeleben’s motion for a certificate
of appealability and dismiss the appeal. See 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)
(2000). Although we grant DeBardeleben’s motion for an extension
of time to file a petition for initial hearing en banc, grant his
motion to file original of pleading, and grant his motion for leave
2
to file a supplement to his petition for initial hearing en banc,
no active judge of this court has voted to grant hearing en banc
and we therefore deny DeBardeleben’s petition for en banc
consideration. 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
3