
    UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Anthony Lee THAMES, Defendant-Appellant.
    No. 03-6982.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
    Submitted Oct. 1, 2003.
    Decided Oct. 17, 2003.
    Anthony Lee Thames, Appellant Pro Se. Eric Evenson, Office of the United States Attorney, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee.
    Before WIDENER and NIEMEYER, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.
    Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
   PER CURIAM.

Anthony Lee Thames seeks to appeal the district court’s order dismissing as untimely 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 appealability. This Court will not issue a certificate of appealability as to claims dismissed by a district court on procedural grounds unless the movant can demonstrate both “(1) ‘that jurists of reason would find it debatable whether the petition [or motion] 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). The relevant inquiry for claims addressed on the merits is whether “reasonable jurists would find the district court’s assessment of the constitutional claims debatable or wrong.” Slack, 529 U.S. at 484.

We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Thames has not made the requisite showing. 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.  