United States v. Leslie , 53 F. App'x 710 ( 2003 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 02-7498
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
versus
NEVILLE SYLVESTER LESLIE,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Alexandria. Leonie M. Brinkema, District
Judge. (CR-98-152)
Submitted: December 19, 2002 Decided: January 6, 2003
Before WILKINS and KING, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judge.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Neville Sylvester Leslie, Appellant Pro Se. Rebeca Hidalgo Bellows,
Assistant United States Attorney, Alexandria, Virginia, for
Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:
Neville Sylvester Leslie seeks to appeal the district court’s
order denying reconsideration of its previous order denying relief
on his motion filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000). An appeal may
not be taken to this court 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). 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)), cert.
denied, 122 S.Ct. 318 (2001). We have reviewed the record and
conclude for the reasons stated by the district court that Leslie
has not made the requisite showing. See United States v. Leslie,
No. CR-98-152 (E.D. Va. filed Aug. 21, 2002; entered Aug. 22,
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
2
materials before the court and argument would not aid the
decisional process.
DISMISSED
3