United States v. Manning , 55 F. App'x 153 ( 2003 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 02-7518
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
versus
DWAYNE MANNING, a/k/a Rude Dog, a/k/a Jonathan
Manning,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. Malcolm J. Howard, District
Judge. (CR-95-156-H, CA-02-356-5-H)
Submitted: January 16, 2003 Decided: January 24, 2003
Before WILLIAMS, KING, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Dwayne Manning, Appellant Pro Se. John Howarth Bennett, OFFICE OF
THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:
Dwayne Manning, a federal prisoner, seeks to appeal the
district court’s order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2255(2000) motion. 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.) (quoting Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000)),
cert. denied, 122 S. Ct. 318 (2001). We have reviewed the record
and conclude for the reasons stated by the district court that
Manning has not made the requisite showing. See United States v.
Manning, Nos. CR-95-156-H; CA-02-356-5-H (E.D.N.C. Aug. 21, 2002;
filed Sept. 27, 2002 & entered Sept. 30, 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