United States v. Fields , 55 F. App'x 172 ( 2003 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 02-7738
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
versus
RONALD FIELDS,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle
District of North Carolina, at Greensboro. N. Carlton Tilley, Jr.,
Chief District Judge. (CR-89-251, CA-02-650-1)
Submitted: January 16, 2003 Decided: January 27, 2003
Before WILLIAMS, KING, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Ronald Fields, Appellant Pro Se. Anna Mills Wagoner, United States
Attorney, Greensboro, North Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:
Ronald Fields seeks to appeal the district court’s judgment
accepting the magistrate judge’s recommendation and denying relief
on Fields’ Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b) motion, which the district court
construed under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000) and concluded the motion
was successive and unauthorized under 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d). Fields
also seeks to appeal the district court’s order and judgment
accepting the magistrate judge’s recommendation and denying relief
on Field’s subsequent 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000) motion, which the
district court also concluded was successive and unauthorized under
28 U.S.C. § 2244(d).
An appeal may not be taken from the final order in a habeas
corpus 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 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, 122 S. Ct. 318 (2001). We have reviewed
the record and conclude for the reasons stated by the district
2
court that Fields has not made the requisite showing. See United
States v. Fields, Nos. CR-89-251; CA-02-650-1 (M.D.N.C. Oct. 21,
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
3