Case ID: f-appx_109/html/0574-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "\n      PER CURIAM:", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Tyrees Coloza WHITEHEAD, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Joseph BROOKS, Warden, Respondent-Appellee.
    No. 04-6723.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
    Submitted: July 16, 2004.
    Decided: Sept. 21, 2004.
    Tyrees Coloza Whitehead, Appellant pro se.
    Stephen Wiley Miller, Office of the United States Attorney, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee.
    Before NIEMEYER, SHEDD, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.
    Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).
   PER CURIAM:

Tyrees Coloza Whitehead seeks to appeal the district court’s order construing his 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (2000) petition as a successive 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000) motion, dismissing it as an unauthorized motion, and denying his motions for reconsideration and for additional findings. 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. § 2258(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, 120 S.Ct. 1595, 146 L.Ed.2d 542 (2000)). We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Whitehead has not made the requisite showing. See Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 336, 123 S.Ct. 1029, 154 L.Ed.2d 931 (2003). 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