Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Harold L. WRIGHT, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2002-10-31
Citations: 49 F. App'x 473
Docket Number: No. 02-7114
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Harold L. WRIGHT, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before WIDENER, MICHAEL, and DIANA GRIBBON MOTZ, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 49
Pages: 473–474

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Harold L. WRIGHT, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 02-7114.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted Oct. 24, 2002.
Decided Oct. 31, 2002.
Harold L. Wright, Appellant Pro Se.
Before WIDENER, MICHAEL, and DIANA GRIBBON MOTZ, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM.
Harold L. Wright, 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 to this court from the final order in a § 2255 proceeding unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appeal ability. 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 appeal ability 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 reviewed the record and conclude for the reasons stated by the district court that Wright has not made the requisite showing. See United States v. Wright, Nos. CR-97-219; CA-02-1520-MJG (D. Md. filed June 20, 2002 & entered June 21, 2002). Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appeal ability 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.