Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. William Michael WALDRON, Jr., Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2005-05-19
Citations: 131 F. App'x 934
Docket Number: No. 04-7721
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, v. William Michael WALDRON, Jr., Defendant—Appellant.
Judges: Before MOTZ and GREGORY, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 131
Pages: 934–935

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, v. William Michael WALDRON, Jr., Defendant—Appellant.
No. 04-7721.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: April 27, 2005.
Decided: May 19, 2005.
William Michael Waldron, Jr., Appellant pro se.
Rose Mary Parham, Assistant United States Attorney, Florence, South Carolina, for Appellee.
Before MOTZ and GREGORY, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
William Michael Waldron, Jr., seeks to appeal the district court's order granting summary judgment to the government and dismissing his motion filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000). The order is not appeal-able unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2000). A certificate of ap pealability 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, 537 U.S. 322, 336-38, 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, 683-84 (4th Cir.2001).
We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Waldron 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