Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Calvin WOODARD, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2004-11-05
Citations: 112 F. App'x 294
Docket Number: No. 04-6216
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Calvin WOODARD, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before LUTTIG, TRAXLER, and KING, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 112
Pages: 294–294

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Calvin WOODARD, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 04-6216.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: Sept. 20, 2004.
Decided: Nov. 5, 2004.
Calvin Woodard, Appellant pro se.
Bonnie S. Greenberg, Office of the United States Attorney, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellee.
Before LUTTIG, TRAXLER, and KING, Circuit Judges.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
Calvin Woodard, a federal prisoner, seeks to appeal the district court's order denying relief on his motion 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). 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, 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 Woodard has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability, deny Woodard's motions for general relief and for leave to consolidate and expand the application for 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Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
DISMISSED