Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Donathan Wayne HADDEN, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2003-04-17
Citations: 61 F. App'x 99
Docket Number: No. 02-7739
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Donathan Wayne HADDEN, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before LUTTIG, WILLIAMS, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 61
Pages: 99–100

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Donathan Wayne HADDEN, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 02-7739.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted March 20, 2003.
Decided April 17, 2003.
Donathan Wayne Hadden, Appellant Pro Se. Alfred William Walker Bethea, Assistant United States Attorney, Florence, South Carolina, for Appellee.
Before LUTTIG, WILLIAMS, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM.
Donathan Wayne Hadden seeks to appeal the district court's orders dismissing his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000) motion in part and denying his motion for reconsidera tion. 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). A certificate of appeal-ability will not issue for claims addressed by a district court on the merits absent "a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right." 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2000); see Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 123 S.Ct. 1029, 1040, 154 L.Ed.2d 931 (2003). As to claims dismissed by a district court 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 independently reviewed the record and conclude that Hadden has not satisfied either standard. 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.