                            UNPUBLISHED

                   UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                       FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT


                            No. 03-6075



UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                                               Plaintiff - Appellee,

          versus


JERMONZA LEVON SPENCER,

                                            Defendant - Appellant.



Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western
District of Virginia, at Roanoke. James C. Turk, Senior District
Judge. (CR-97-82, CA-01-776-7)


Submitted:   May 7, 2003                    Decided:    May 22, 2003


Before WIDENER, LUTTIG, and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges.


Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.


Jermonza Levon Spencer, Appellant Pro Se. Jean Barrett Hudson, Jack
C. Frels, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Charlottesville,
Virginia, for Appellee.


Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

     Jermonza Levon Spencer 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 to this court from a 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).    A

certificate of appealability will not issue for claims addressed by

a district court on the merits absent “a substantial showing of a

denial of a constitutional right.”      28 U.S. § 2255(c)(2) (2000).

As to claims dismissed by a district court 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 that Spencer has not satisfied either standard.

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




                                 2
contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the

court and argument would not aid the decisional process.




                                                           DISMISSED




                                3
