Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Quinton D. RAINEY, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2002-12-31
Citations: 54 F. App'x 153
Docket Number: No. 02-7373
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Quinton D. RAINEY, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 54
Pages: 153–154

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Quinton D. RAINEY, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 02-7373.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted Dec. 19, 2002.
Decided Dec. 31, 2002.
Quinton D. Rainey, Appellant Pro Se. Fernando Groene, 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Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.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.
Quinton D. Rainey seeks to appeal the district court's order denying his motion to reconsider a prior order which construed his motion for resentencing under 21 U.S.C. § 851 (2000) as a successive motion pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000). An appeal may not be taken from the final order in a proceeding under § 2255 unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(B) (2000). When, as here, a district court dismisses a § 2255 motion solely on procedural grounds, a certifícate 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 reviewed the record and conclude for the reasons stated by the district court that Rainey has not made the requisite showing. See United States v. Rainey, Nos. CR-94-69, CA-99-13-4 (E.D.Va. July 24, 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.