Case ID: f-appx_55/html/0172-02.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "PER CURIAM.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Ronald FIELDS, Defendant-Appellant.
    No. 02-7738.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
    Submitted Jan. 16, 2003.
    Decided Jan. 27, 2003.
    Ronald Fields, Appellant Pro Se. Anna Mills Wagoner, United States Attorney, Greensboro, North Carolina, for Appellee.
    Before WILLIAMS, KING, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.
    Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
   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, 120 S.Ct. 1595, 146 L.Ed.2d 542 (2000)), cert. denied, 534 U.S. 941, 122 S.Ct. 318, 151 L.Ed.2d 237 (2001). We have reviewed the record and conclude for the reasons stated by the district 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.