UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 03-6302
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
versus
JAMES DENSON,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Greenville. G. Ross Anderson, Jr., District
Judge. (CR-90-04051-4-WS, CA-02-4013-5-13AK)
Submitted: April 24, 2003 Decided: May 5, 2003
Before NIEMEYER, GREGORY, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
James Denson, Appellant Pro Se. James Strom Thurmond, Jr., United
States Attorney, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:
James Denson seeks to appeal the district court’s order
accepting the magistrate judge’s report and recommendation and
dismissing without prejudice his motion for relief, construed as
one pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000). An appeal may not be taken
from the final order in 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, 534 U.S. 941
(2001). We have independently reviewed the record and conclude
Denson 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