03-6338 | 4th Cir. | Jun 18, 2003
Before WILLIAMS, MICHAEL, and KING, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Luther Jenkins, IV, Appellant Pro Se. Brian Lee Whisler, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Norfolk, Virginia; Timika Shafeek, Assistant United States Attorney, Jennifer Marie Hoefling, Assistant United States Attorney, Charlotte, North Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:
Luther Jenkins, IV, 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 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 absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2000). A prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that his constitutional claims are debatable and that any dispositive procedural rulings by the district court are also debatable or wrong. See Miller-El v. Cockrell, 123 S. Ct. 1029, 1040 (2003); Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000); Rose v. Lee, 252 F.3d 676" date_filed="2001-05-24" court="4th Cir." case_name="Rose v. Lee">252 F.3d 676, 683 (4th Cir.), cert. denied, 534 U.S. 941 (2001). We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Jenkins has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. Jenkins’ motion to proceed in forma pauperis is denied. 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