UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 02-7263

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus

GREGORY HOOTEN, Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina, at Statesville. Richard L. Voorhees, District Judge. (CR-97-109, CA-00-50)

Submitted: November 7, 2002 Decided: November 14, 2002

Before WILKINS and LUTTIG, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Gregory Hooten, Appellant Pro Se. Gretchen C.F. Shappert, Assistant United States Attorney, Charlotte, North Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).

PER CURIAM: Gregory Hooten 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 to this court 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)(B) (2000).

A certificate of appealability 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). As to claims dismissed by a district court solely on procedural grounds, a certificate of appealability will not issue unless the petitioner 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, 484 (2000)). We have reviewed the record and conclude for the reasons stated by the district court that Hooten has not satisfied either standard. See United States v. Hooten, Nos. CR-97-109; CA- 00-50 (W.D.N.C. July 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