Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Michael Anthony JENKINS, a/k/a Tone, a/k/a Todd Jenkins, a/k/a Domonique Jenkins, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2003-03-28
Citations: 60 F. App'x 447
Docket Number: No. 02-6912
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Michael Anthony JENKINS, a/k/a Tone, a/k/a Todd Jenkins, a/k/a Domonique Jenkins, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 60
Pages: 447–448

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Michael Anthony JENKINS, a/k/a Tone, a/k/a Todd Jenkins, a/k/a Domonique Jenkins, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 02-6912.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted Feb. 25, 2003.
Decided March 28, 2003.
Michael Anthony Jenkins, Appellant Pro Se. Michael R. Smythers, Assistant United States Attorney, William David Muhr, Office of The United States Attorney, Norfolk, Virginia, for Appellee.
Before WIDENER, WILLIAMS, and KING, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM.
Michael Anthony Jenkins seeks to appeal the district court's order dismissing his motion filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000). An appeal may not be taken from the final order in a motion under § 2255 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 petitioner can demonstrate both "(1) 'that ju rists 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 Jenkins has not made the requisite showing. See United States v. Jenkins, Nos. CR-93-81; CA-02-237-2 (E.D.Va. Apr. 11, 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.