Filed: March 4, 2003

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 02-7331 (CR-98-4, CA-02-475-7)

United States of America,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

versus

Michael Eugene Miller,

Defendant - Appellant.

O R D E R

The court amends its opinion filed February 12, 2003, as

follows:

On page 2, line 16 -- the reference to “Glenn” is corrected to

read “Miller.”

For the Court - By Direction

/s/ Patricia S. Connor Clerk UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 02-7331

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

versus

MICHAEL EUGENE MILLER,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia, at Abingdon. James P. Jones, District Judge. (CR-98-4, CA-02-475-7)

Submitted: February 6, 2003 Decided: February 12, 2003

Before WILKINS, MICHAEL, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Michael Eugene Miller, Appellant Pro Se. Steven Randall Ramseyer, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Abingdon, Virginia, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

Michael Eugene Miller appeals the district court’s order

denying relief on his

(2000) motion. An appeal

may not be taken from the final order in a habeas corpus proceeding

unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of

appealability.

(c)(1) (2000). When, as here, a

district court dismisses a

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,

(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 Miller has not made the requisite showing. See United

States v. Miller, Nos. CR-98-4; CA-02-475-7 (W.D. Va. Aug. 1,

2002). Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability, deny

Miller’s motion for appointed counsel, and dismiss the appeal. See

(c) (2000). We dispense with oral argument because

the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the

3 materials before the court and argument would not aid the

decisional process.

DISMISSED

4