
    UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Terrence Edward HAMMOCK, Jr., Defendant-Appellant. United States of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Terrence Edward Hammock, Jr., Defendant-Appellant.
    Nos. 02-7755, 02-7818.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
    Submitted Feb. 6, 2003.
    Decided Feb. 12, 2003.
    Terrence Edward Hammock, Jr., Appellant Pro Se. Thomas Michael DiBiagio, United States Attorney, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellee.
    Before WILKINS, MICHAEL, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.
    Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
   PER CURIAM.

Terrance Edward Hammock, Jr., a federal prisoner, seeks to appeal the district court’s orders denying relief on his motion filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000) and denying him a certifícate of appealability. 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). A certificate of appealability will not issue for claims addressed by a district court on the merits absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2000); see Rose v. Lee, 252 F.3d 676, 683 (4th Cir.), 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 Hammock has not made the requisite showing. See United States v. Hammock, Nos. CR-98-512-L; CA-02-2057-L (D. Md. filed Oct. 18, 2002 & entered Oct. 21, 2002; Nov. 22, 2002). Accordingly, we deny Hammond’s motion for 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.  