Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Frank J. MASIARCZYK, Jr., Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2003-04-01
Citations: 60 F. App'x 477
Docket Number: No. 02-7492
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Frank J. MASIARCZYK, Jr., Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 60
Pages: 477–478

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Frank J. MASIARCZYK, Jr., Defendant-Appellant.
No. 02-7492.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted March 21, 2003.
Decided April 1, 2003.
Frank J. Masiarczyk, Jr., Appellant Pro Se. Sharon L. Potter, Office of the United States Attorney, Wheeling, West Virginia, for Appellee.
Before WIDENER, NIEMEYER, and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM.
Frank J. Masiarczyk, Jr., 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 to this court from the final order in a motion under § 2255 unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appeal-ability. 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 Masiarczyk has not made the requisite showing. See Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 123 S.Ct. 1029, 1039-40, 154 L.Ed.2d 931 (2003). Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. See 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c) (2000). 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.