Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Paul D. WALDE, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2005-05-02
Citations: 127 F. App'x 111
Docket Number: No. 04-7945
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, v. Paul D. WALDE, Defendant—Appellant.
Judges: Before NIEMEYER, MOTZ, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 127
Pages: 111–112

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, v. Paul D. WALDE, Defendant—Appellant.
No. 04-7945.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: April 20, 2005.
Decided: May 2, 2005.
Paul D. Walde, Appellant pro se.
Sara Elizabeth Flannery, Office of the United States Attorney, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee.
Before NIEMEYER, MOTZ, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
Paul D. Walde, formerly a federal prisoner, seeks to appeal the district court's order dismissing his motion filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000). The order is not appealable 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). The 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, 537 U.S. 322, 336, 123 S.Ct. 1029, 154 L.Ed.2d 931 (2003); Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484, 120 S.Ct. 1595, 146 L.Ed.2d 542 (2000); Rose v. Lee, 252 F.3d 676, 683 (4th Cir.2001). We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Walde 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