UNPUBLISHED

                   UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                       FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT


                            No. 01-6693



UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                                               Plaintiff - Appellee,

          versus


MAURICE D. ROBINSON,

                                            Defendant - Appellant.



Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Henry Coke Morgan, Jr., District
Judge. (CR-98-47, CA-01-49-2)


Submitted:   February 20, 2003         Decided:     February 26, 2003


Before LUTTIG, MOTZ, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.


Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.


Maurice D. Robinson, Appellant Pro Se. Fernando Groene, OFFICE OF
THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Norfolk, Virginia, for Appellee.


Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

     Maurice D. Robinson 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 from a final order denying relief under

this section 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, 

, 684 (4th Cir.)

(quoting Slack v. McDaniel, 

 (2000)), cert. denied, 

 (2001).   We have reviewed the record and conclude for the

reasons stated by the district court that Robinson has not made the

requisite showing.    See United States v. Robinson, Nos. CR-98-47;

CA-01-49-2 (E.D. Va. Mar. 2, 2001).         Accordingly, we deny a

certificate of appealability, deny leave to proceed in forma

pauperis, 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