                             UNPUBLISHED

                   UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                       FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT


                             No. 03-6222



UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                                               Plaintiff - Appellee,

          versus


JEROME WALDEN,

                                             Defendant - Appellant.



Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Richmond. James R. Spencer, District
Judge. (CR-95-63, CA-03-77-3)


Submitted:   April 8, 2003                 Decided:   April 23, 2003


Before LUTTIG, MOTZ, and KING, Circuit Judges.


Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.


Jerome Walden, 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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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).
PER CURIAM:

     Jerome   Walden,   a   federal   prisoner,    seeks   to   appeal   the

district court’s order denying relief on his motion filed under 28

U.S.C. § 2255 (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.            28 U.S.C. § 2253(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 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.) (quoting Slack v. McDaniel, 529

U.S. 473, 484 (2000)), cert. denied, 534 U.S. 941 (2001).          We have

independently reviewed the record and conclude Walden has not made

the requisite showing.      See Miller-El v. Cockrell,           U.S.     ,

123 S. Ct. 1029 (2003).        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
