United States v. Jenkins ( 2003 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 02-6912
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
versus
MICHAEL ANTHONY JENKINS, a/k/a Tone, a/k/a
Todd Jenkins, a/k/a Domonique Jenkins,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Rebecca Beach Smith, District
Judge. (CR-93-81, CA-02-237-2)
Submitted: February 25, 2003 Decided: March 28, 2003
Before WIDENER, WILLIAMS, and KING, Circuit Judges
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Michael Anthony Jenkins, Appellant Pro Se. Michael R. Smythers,
Assistant United States Attorney, William David Muhr, OFFICE OF THE
UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Norfolk, Virginia, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:
Michael Anthony Jenkins seeks to appeal the district court’s
order dismissing his motion filed under 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 reviewed the record and
conclude for the reasons stated by the district court that Jenkins
has not made the requisite showing. See United States v. Jenkins,
Nos. CR-93-81; CA-02-237-2 (E.D. Va. Apr. 11, 2002). 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