Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Toy Burtron MADDEN, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2003-02-05
Citations: 55 F. App'x 642
Docket Number: No. 02-7823
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Toy Burtron MADDEN, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 55
Pages: 642–642

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Toy Burtron MADDEN, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 02-7823.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted Jan. 30, 2003.
Decided Feb. 5, 2003.
Toy Burtron Madden, Appellant Pro Se. Joyce Kallam McDonald, Assistant United States Attorney, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellee.
Before WIDENER, NIEMEYER, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM.
Toy Burtron Madden seeks to appeal the district court's order denying relief on his petition for mandamus relief, which the district court construed as a successive motion filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000). An appeal may not be taken from the final order in a habeas corpus 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 mov-ant 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 reviewed the record and conclude for the reasons stated by the district court that Madden has not made the requisite showing. See United States v. Madden, Nos. CR-94M40-JFM; CA-02-3415-JFM (D.Md. Oct. 28, 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.