
    UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, and Elizabeth J. Smith; Richard A. Jones, Personal Representative for the estate of Ethel J. Swink, deceased; David Lusk; Leland M. Bryson; Lynn B. Bryson; Paul B. Goist, Parties in Interest, v. William M. BRYSON, Jr., Defendant-Appellant.
    No. 03-6446.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
    Submitted June 19, 2003.
    Decided June 25, 2003.
    
      William M. Bryson, Jr., Appellant Pro Se. Mark C. Moore, Assistant United States Attorney, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellee.
    Before NIEMEYER, KING, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.
    Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
   PER CURIAM.

William M. Bryson, Jr., a federal prisoner, seeks to appeal the district court’s order dismissing without prejudice his motion filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000), because the direct appeal of his conviction was still pending. 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 [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). We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Bryson has not made the requisite showing. See Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 123 S.Ct. 1029, 154 L.Ed.2d 931 (2003). Accordingly, we deny Bryson’s motion for appointment of counsel, 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.  