UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 04-6723
TYREES COLOZA WHITEHEAD,
Petitioner - Appellant,
versus
JOSEPH BROOKS, Warden,
Respondent - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Richmond. James R. Spencer, District
Judge. (CA-03-220-3)
Submitted: July 16, 2004 Decided: September 21, 2004
Before NIEMEYER, SHEDD, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Tyrees Coloza Whitehead, 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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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:
Tyrees Coloza Whitehead seeks to appeal the district
court’s order construing his 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (2000) petition as a
successive 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000) motion, dismissing it as an
unauthorized motion, and denying his motions for reconsideration
and for additional findings. 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
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. 2001) (quoting Slack v.
McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000)). We have independently
reviewed the record and conclude that Whitehead has not made the
requisite showing. See Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 336
(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