Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Larry J. BUDD, Defendant-Appellant; United States of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Larry J. Budd, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2003-03-25
Citations: 60 F. App'x 436
Docket Number: Nos. 02-7793, 02-7813
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Larry J. BUDD, Defendant-Appellant. United States of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Larry J. Budd, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 60
Pages: 436–437

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Larry J. BUDD, Defendant-Appellant. United States of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Larry J. Budd, Defendant-Appellant.
Nos. 02-7793, 02-7813.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted March 20, 2003.
Decided March 25, 2003.
Larry J. Budd, Appellant Pro Se. Daphene Rose McFerren, Office of the United States Attorney, Greenbelt, Maryland, for Appellee.
Before WILLIAMS and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM.
In these consolidated appeals, Larry J. Budd seeks to appeal the district court's orders denying relief on his motions 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 movant 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, 534 U.S. 941 (2001). We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Budd has not made the requisite showing. See Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 123 S.Ct. 1029, 1039-40, 154 L.Ed.2d 931 (2003). We deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeals. 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.