UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 02-7498

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

versus

NEVILLE SYLVESTER LESLIE,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Alexandria. Leonie M. Brinkema, District Judge. (CR-98-152)

Submitted: December 19, 2002 Decided: January 6, 2003

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

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Neville Sylvester Leslie, Appellant Pro Se. Rebeca Hidalgo Bellows, Assistant United States Attorney, Alexandria, Virginia, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM:

Neville Sylvester Leslie seeks to appeal the district court’s

order denying reconsideration of its previous order denying relief

on his motion filed under

(2000). An appeal may

not be taken to this court from the final order in a proceeding

under § 2255 unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate

of appealability.

(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,

(4th Cir.

2001) (quoting Slack v. McDaniel,

(2000)), cert.

denied,

(2001). We have reviewed the record and

conclude for the reasons stated by the district court that Leslie

has not made the requisite showing. See United States v. Leslie,

No. CR-98-152 (E.D. Va. filed Aug. 21, 2002; entered Aug. 22,

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

2 materials before the court and argument would not aid the

decisional process.

DISMISSED

3