Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Jerome WALDEN, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2003-04-23
Citations: 60 F. App'x 980
Docket Number: No. 03-6222
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Jerome WALDEN, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 60
Pages: 980–981

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Jerome WALDEN, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 03-6222.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted April 8, 2003.
Decided April 23, 2003.
Jerome Walden, Appellant Pro Se. David John Novak, Office Of The United States Attorney, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee.
Before LUTTIG, MOTZ, and KING, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM.
Jerome Walden, a federal prisoner, 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. § 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 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 Walden 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.