Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Kermit W. BUNN, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2004-06-28
Citations: 101 F. App'x 411
Docket Number: No. 04-6643
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Kermit W. BUNN, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before NIEMEYER, TRAXLER, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 101
Pages: 411–411

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Kermit W. BUNN, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 04-6643.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: June 16, 2004.
Decided: June 28, 2004.
Susan Graham James, Montgomery, Alabama, for Appellant.
Robert H. McWilliams, Jr., Assistant United States Attorney, Michael D. Stein, Office of the United States Attorney, Wheeling, West Virginia; David Earl God-win, Assistant United States Attorney, Clarksburg, West Virginia, for Appellee.
Before NIEMEYER, TRAXLER, and SHEDD, 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Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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:
Kermit Wayne Bunn moves for a certificate of appealability to challenge the district court's denial of his petition for a certificate of appealability from its order denying his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000) motion. 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 habeas appellant meets 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, 326, 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 Bunn has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny Bunn's motion 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