                            UNPUBLISHED

                   UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                       FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT


                            No. 02-7156



UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                                               Plaintiff - Appellee,

          versus


MELVIN HAUSER,

                                            Defendant - Appellant.



Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western
District of Virginia, at Roanoke. James C. Turk, Senior District
Judge. (CA-02-770-7)


Submitted:   May 15, 2003                   Decided:   May 20, 2003


Before LUTTIG and KING, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judge.


Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.


Melvin Hauser, Appellant Pro Se.


Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

      Melvin Hauser seeks to appeal the district court’s order

construing his 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (2000) petition as a successive 28

U.S.C. § 2255 (2000) motion and dismissing it without prejudice.

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

movant 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 Hauser has not made the requisite showing.

See   Miller-El   v.    Cockrell,   123   S.   Ct.   1029,    1039    (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
