UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 03-6982

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

versus

ANTHONY LEE THAMES,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Wilmington. James C. Fox, Senior District Judge. (CR-00-122-7-1-FO, CA-02-56-F)

Submitted: October 1, 2003 Decided: October 17, 2003

Before WIDENER and NIEMEYER, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Anthony Lee Thames, Appellant Pro Se. Eric Evenson, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

Anthony Lee Thames seeks to appeal the district court’s order

dismissing as untimely 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. This Court will not issue a certificate of

appealability as to claims dismissed by a district court on

procedural grounds unless the movant can demonstrate both “(1)

‘that jurists of reason would find it debatable whether the

petition [or 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). The relevant inquiry for claims addressed on the merits is

whether “reasonable jurists would find the district court’s

assessment of the constitutional claims debatable or wrong.”

Slack,

.

We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that

Thames has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a

certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. We dispense

with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are

2 adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument

would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED

3