Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. James Claude BAILEY, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2003-06-27
Citations: 68 F. App'x 459
Docket Number: No. 03-6133
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. James Claude BAILEY, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 68
Pages: 459–460

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. James Claude BAILEY, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 03-6133.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted June 16, 2003.
Decided June 27, 2003.
James Claude Bailey, Appellant Pro Se. Michael R. Smythers, Assistant United States Attorney, Norfolk, Virginia, for Appellee.
Before WIDENER and KING, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.
Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Opinion:
OPINION
PER CURIAM.
James Claude Bailey 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. § 2258(c)(1)(B) (2000). When, as here, a district court dismisses a § 2255 motion 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).
As to Bailey's ineffective assistance of counsel claims, the district court denied those claims because they were not raised in Bailey's direct appeal. At the time it issued its decision, the district court did not have the benefit of Massaro v. United States, — U.S.-, 123 S.Ct. 1690, 1696, 155 L.Ed.2d 714 (2003) (holding that failure to raise ineffective assistance of counsel claims on direct appeal does not bar movant from raising such claims in a § 2255 motion). While we conclude that jurists of reason could debate the correctness of the district court's procedural ruling, we have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Bailey has not demonstrated the denial of a constitutional right as to his ineffective assistance of counsel claims. See Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 123 S.Ct. 1029, 154 L.Ed.2d 931 (2003).
The district court denied the remainder of Bailey's claims because he failed to raise them on direct appeal. We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Bailey has not made the requisite showing to obtain a certificate of appealability as to those claims.
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.