United States v. Parker , 53 F. App'x 295 ( 2002 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 02-7532
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
versus
GREGG EDWARD PARKER,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western
District of Virginia, at Roanoke. Jackson L. Kiser, Senior District
Judge. (CR-99-70054, CA-02-907-7)
Submitted: December 16, 2002 Decided: December 23, 2002
Before LUTTIG, MICHAEL, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Gregg Edward Parker, Appellant Pro Se. Anthony Paul Giorno, OFFICE
OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Roanoke, Virginia, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:
Gregg Edward Parker seeks to appeal the district court’s order
denying relief on his motion filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000).
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)(B) (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 reviewed the record and conclude for the reasons stated by the
district court that Parker has not made the requisite showing. See
United States v. Parker, Nos. CR-99-70054; CA-02-907-7 (W.D. Va.
Sept. 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