Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Eduardo MEDRANO, a/k/a Benny Hernandez, a/k/a Edward Alexis Medrano, a/k/a Bienvenido Herrera, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2003-01-06
Citations: 53 F. App'x 710
Docket Number: No. 02-7502
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Eduardo MEDRANO, a/k/a Benny Hernandez, a/k/a Edward Alexis Medrano, a/k/a Bienvenido Herrera, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 53
Pages: 710–711

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Eduardo MEDRANO, a/k/a Benny Hernandez, a/k/a Edward Alexis Medrano, a/k/a Bienvenido Herrera, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 02-7502.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted Dec. 19, 2002.
Decided Jan. 6, 2003.
Eduardo Medrano, Appellant Pro Se. Robert Edward Brandenham, II, Office of the United States Attorney, Norfolk, Virginia, for Appellee.
Before WILKINS and KING, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.
Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM.
Eduardo Medrano 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 from a final order denying relief under this section 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.2001) (quoting Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 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 Medrano has not made the requisite showing. United States v. Medrano, Nos. CR-97-26; CA-02-50-4 (E.D. Va. filed Sept. 17, 2002; entered Sept. 18, 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.