UNPUBLISHED

                      UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                          FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT


                               No. 02-7518



UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                                                  Plaintiff - Appellee,

             versus


DWAYNE MANNING, a/k/a Rude Dog, a/k/a Jonathan
Manning,

                                                 Defendant - Appellant.



Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. Malcolm J. Howard, District
Judge. (CR-95-156-H, CA-02-356-5-H)


Submitted:    January 16, 2003               Decided:   January 24, 2003


Before WILLIAMS, KING, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.


Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.


Dwayne Manning, Appellant Pro Se. John Howarth Bennett, OFFICE OF
THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee.


Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:

     Dwayne Manning, a federal prisoner, seeks to appeal 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 § 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 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, 

, 684

(4th Cir.) (quoting Slack v. McDaniel, 

, 484 (2000)),

cert. denied, 

 (2001).    We have reviewed the record

and conclude for the reasons stated by the district court that

Manning has not made the requisite showing.    See United States v.

Manning, Nos. CR-95-156-H; CA-02-356-5-H (E.D.N.C. Aug. 21, 2002;

filed Sept. 27, 2002 & entered Sept. 30, 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


                                 2