UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 03-6689
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
versus
SPENCER BOWENS, a/k/a Scooter, a/k/a Clyde,
a/k/a Melvin McCurdy, a/k/a Doc Johnson,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Richmond. Robert E. Payne, District Judge.
(CR-98-110, CA-02-211-3)
Submitted: July 24, 2003 Decided: August 6, 2003
Before NIEMEYER, MICHAEL, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Spencer Bowens, Appellant Pro Se. David John Novak, 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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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:
Spencer Bowens seeks to appeal the district court’s orders
denying relief on his motion filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000),
denying his motion to reconsider, and denying his motion to
supplement his motion to reconsider. An appeal may not be taken
from the final order in a proceeding under § 2255 unless a circuit
justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C.
§ 2253(c)(1) (2000). A certificate of appealability will not issue
for claims addressed by a district court on the merits absent “a
substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28
U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2). As to claims dismissed by a district court
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 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 Bowens has not satisfied
either standard. See Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, , 123
S. Ct. 1029, 1039 (2003). Accordingly, we deny Bowens’ motion for
a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. We dispense
with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are
2
adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument
would not aid the decisional process.
DISMISSED
3