Case Name: UNITED STATES OF America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Reggie DELOACH, a/k/a Intell Abrams, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2003-03-14
Citations: 57 F. App'x 197
Docket Number: No. 02-7801
Parties: UNITED STATES OF America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Reggie DELOACH, a/k/a Intell Abrams, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 57
Pages: 197–197

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES OF America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Reggie DELOACH, a/k/a Intell Abrams, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 02-7801.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted March 6, 2003.
Decided March 14, 2003.
Reggie DeLoach, Appellant Pro Se. Stephen Wiley Miller, Office of the United States Attorney, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee.
Before WILKINSON, MICHAEL and KING, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM.
Reggie DeLoach seeks to appeal the district court's order denying relief on his petition filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000). An appeal may not be taken to this court 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). A certificate of appealability will not issue for claims addressed by a district court on the merits absent "a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right." 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2000). As to claims dismissed by a district court 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.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 DeLoach has not satisfied either standard. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. See Miller-El v. Cock-rell — U.S.-, 123 S.Ct. 1029, 1039-40,154 L.Ed.2d 931 (2003).
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.