UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 03-6087
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
versus
GABRIEL MIGUEL TORRENS,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of North Carolina, at New Bern. Malcolm J. Howard,
District Judge. (CR-95-65, CA-02-95-4-H)
Submitted: March 20, 2003 Decided: March 31, 2003
Before WILLIAMS and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judge.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Gabriel Miguel Torrens, Appellant Pro Se. Rudolf A. Renfer, Jr.,
Assistant United States Attorney, Raleigh, North Carolina, for
Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:
Gabriel Miguel Torrens, a federal prisoner, seeks to appeal
the district court’s order denying relief on his petition filed
under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (2000), which the district court construed
as a motion 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 independently reviewed the record and conclude
that Torrens has not made the requisite showing. See Miller-El v.
Cockrell, U.S. , 2003 WL 431659, at *10 (U.S. Feb. 25, 2003)
(No. 01-7662). 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
2
materials before the court and argument would not aid the
decisional process.
DISMISSED
3