Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Anthony BONNER, a/k/a Tone, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2003-03-27
Citations: 62 F. App'x 463
Docket Number: No. 02-7944
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Anthony BONNER, a/k/a Tone, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before WILLIAMS and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 62
Pages: 463–464

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Anthony BONNER, a/k/a Tone, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 02-7944.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted March 20, 2003.
Decided March 27, 2003.
Anthony Bonner, Appellant Pro Se. Christine Manuelian, Office of the United States Attorney, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellee.
Before WILLIAMS and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.
Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM.
Anthony R. Bonner, a federal prisoner, seeks to appeal the district court's order denying relief on his motion filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000). 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. § 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 [motion] 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 independently reviewed the record and conclude that Bonner has not made the requisite showing. See Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 123 S.Ct. 1029, 1039, 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.