Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Jermonza Levon SPENCER, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2003-05-22
Citations: 63 F. App'x 723
Docket Number: No. 03-6075
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Jermonza Levon SPENCER, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before WIDENER, LUTTIG, and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 63
Pages: 723–723

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Jermonza Levon SPENCER, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 03-6075.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted May 7, 2003.
Decided May 22, 2003.
Jermonza Levon Spencer, Appellant pro se. Jean Barrett Hudson, Jack C. Freís, Office of the United States Attorney, Charlottesville, Virginia, for Appellee.
Before WIDENER, LUTTIG, and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
PER CURIAM.
Jermonza Levon Spencer 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 a 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). A certificate of appealability will not issue for claims addressed by a district court on the merits absent "a substantial showing of a denial of a constitutional right." 28 U.S. § 2255(c)(2) (2000). As to claims dismissed by a district court 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 Spencer has not satisfied either standard. 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.