Daniel Raymond Lutz seeks to appeal the district court order denying relief on his “Formal Complaint.” This filing was properly construed as a successive motion filed under 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) (2000). When, as here, a dis *478 trict court dismisses a § 2255 motion 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, 120 S.Ct. 1595, 146 L.Ed.2d 542 (2000)). We have reviewed the record and conclude for the reasons stated by the district court that Lutz has not made the requisite showing. See United States v. Lutz, Nos. CR-95-293-PJM; CA-99-3663-HMH (D.Md. Sept. 16, 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.