Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Melvin HAUSER, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2003-05-20
Citations: 63 F. App'x 158
Docket Number: No. 02-7156
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Melvin HAUSER, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before LUTTIG and KING, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 63
Pages: 158–159

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Melvin HAUSER, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 02-7156.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted May 15, 2003.
Decided May 20, 2003.
Melvin Hauser, Appellant Pro Se.
Before LUTTIG and KING, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.

Opinion:
Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
PER CURIAM.
Melvin Hauser 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 and dismissing it without prejudice. 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 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 independently reviewed the record and conclude that Hauser 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.