Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Clarence Odell STANLEY, Jr., Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2003-02-13
Citations: 55 F. App'x 709
Docket Number: No. 02-7874
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Clarence Odell STANLEY, Jr., Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 55
Pages: 709–710

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Clarence Odell STANLEY, Jr., Defendant-Appellant.
No. 02-7874.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted Feb. 6, 2003.
Decided Feb. 13, 2003.
Clarence Odell Stanley, Jr., Appellant Pro Se.
Before WILKINS, MICHAEL, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM.
Clarence Odell Stanley, Jr., a federal prisoner, seeks to appeal the district court's orders denying relief on his motion filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000) and his motion to reconsider. 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). A certificate of appealability will not issue for claims ad dressed 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 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 reviewed the record and conclude for the reasons stated by the district court that Stanley has not satisfied either standard. See United States v. Stanley, Nos. CR-97-45-F; CA-00-58-7-F (E.D.N.C. filed June 12, 2002 & entered June 13, 2002; filed Aug. 7, 2002 & entered Aug. 9, 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.