UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 02-7643

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

versus

RICHARD A. THOMAS, a/k/a Mark Andrew Taylor, a/k/a Richie, a/k/a Spooky,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Richmond. Robert E. Payne, District Judge. (CR-96-66, CA-01-261-3)

Submitted: February 20, 2003 Decided: February 26, 2003

Before LUTTIG and MOTZ, Circuit Judges.*

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Richard A. Thomas, Appellant Pro Se. David John Novak, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

* This opinion is filed by a quorum pursuant to

(d) (2000). PER CURIAM:

Richard A. Thomas, a federal prisoner, seeks to appeal the

district court’s order denying relief on his motion filed under

(2000). An appeal may not be taken from the final

order in a § 2255 proceeding 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 [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,

(4th Cir.) (quoting Slack v. McDaniel,

(2000)), cert. denied,

(2001). We have reviewed

the record and conclude for the reasons stated by the district

court that Thomas has not made the requisite showing. See United

States v. Thomas, Nos. CR-96-66, CA-01-261-3 (E.D. Va. Aug. 19,

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

2