
    UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Stephen James MILLS, Defendant-Appellant.
    No. 02-7546.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
    Submitted Dec. 16, 2002.
    Decided Dec. 23, 2002.
    
      Stephen James Mills, Appellant Pro Se. Sean Kittrell, Office of the United States Attorney, Charleston, South Carolina, for Appellee.
    Before LUTTIG, MICHAEL, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges.
    Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
   PER CURIAM.

Stephen Miller, 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 to this court 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). To be entitled to a certificate of appealability, Mills must make “a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2000). When, as here, a district court dismisses solely on procedural grounds, a certificate of appealability will not issued unless the Appellant 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.2001) (quoting Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484, 120 S.Ct. 1595, 146 L.Ed.2d 542 (2000)). We have reviewed the record and conclude for the reasons stated by the district court that Mills has not made the requisite showing. See United States v. Mills, Nos. CR-97-815; CA-02-623-2-18 (D.S.C. Sept. 16, 2002). 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.  