UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 02-7404
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
versus
KURT BLACK, a/k/a Ratty,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Richmond. James R. Spencer, District
Judge. (CR-96-104, CA-02-452)
Submitted: April 17, 2003 Decided: April 22, 2003
Before WIDENER, WILLIAMS, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Kurt Black, Appellant Pro Se. Stephen Wiley Miller, OFFICE OF THE
UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:
Kurt Black seeks to appeal the district court’s orders denying
his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000) motion and his motion for
reconsideration. An appeal may not be taken to this court 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)
(2000). When a district court dismisses a habeas petition 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 Black has not made the
requisite showing. See Miller-El v. Cockrell, U.S. , 123 S.
Ct. 1029 (2003). 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