Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Kurt BLACK, a/k/a Ratty, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2003-04-22
Citations: 60 F. App'x 948
Docket Number: No. 02-7404
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Kurt BLACK, a/k/a Ratty, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 60
Pages: 948–948

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Kurt BLACK, a/k/a Ratty, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 02-7404.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted April 17, 2003.
Decided April 22, 2003.
Kurt Black, Appellant pro se. Stephen Wiley Miller, Office of the United States Attorney, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee.
Before WIDENER, WILLIAMS, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM.
Kurt Black seeks to appeal the district court's orders denying his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000) motion and his motion for reconsideration. An appeal may not be taken to this court 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) (2000). When a district court dismisses a habeas petition 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.) (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 Black has not made the requisite showing. See Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 123 S.Ct. 1029, 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.