
    UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Michael Eugene MILLER, Defendant-Appellant.
    No. 02-7331.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
    Submitted Feb. 6, 2003.
    Decided Feb. 12, 2003.
    Michael Eugene Miller, Appellant Pro Se. Steven Randall Ramseyer, Office of the United States Attorney, Abingdon, Virginia, for Appellee.
    Before WILKINS, MICHAEL, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.
    Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
   PER CURIAM.

Michael Eugene Miller appeals the district court’s order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (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 ap-pealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2000). When, as here, a district court dismisses a 28 U.S.C. § 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, 120 S.Ct. 1595, 146 L.Ed.2d 542 (2000)), cert. denied, 534 U.S. 941, 122 S.Ct. 318, 151 L.Ed.2d 237 (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 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c) (2000). 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.  