Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Elias CONTRERAS, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2003-02-12
Citations: 55 F. App'x 698
Docket Number: No. 02-7693
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Elias CONTRERAS, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 55
Pages: 698–699

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Elias CONTRERAS, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 02-7693.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted Feb. 6, 2003.
Decided Feb. 12, 2003.
Elias Contreras, Appellant Pro Se. Kevin Frank McDonald, Office of the United States Attorney, Greenville, South Carolina, for Appellee.
Before WILKINS, MICHAEL, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM.
Elias Contreras, 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 certifícate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2258(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 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 Contreras has not made the requisite showing. See United States v. Contreras, Nos. CR-99-209; CA-02-3201-6-20 (D.S.C. Oct. 3, 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.