Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Martez COLEMAN, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2006-01-25
Citations: 164 F. App'x 323
Docket Number: No. 05-7261
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, v. Martez COLEMAN, Defendant—Appellant.
Judges: Before WILKINSON, TRAXLER, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 164
Pages: 323–323

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, v. Martez COLEMAN, Defendant—Appellant.
No. 05-7261.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted Jan. 19, 2006.
Decided Jan. 25, 2006.
Martez Coleman, Appellant Pro Se. Mark C. Moore, Assistant United States Attorney, Stacey Denise Haynes, Office of the United States Attorney, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellee.
Before WILKINSON, TRAXLER, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
Martez Coleman, a federal prisoner, seeks to appeal the district court's order dismissing his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000) motion. 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 for claims addressed by a district court 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 both that the district court's assessment of his constitutional claims is debatable or wrong 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 Coleman 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