Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Earl L. HAWKINS, Jr., Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2003-07-28
Citations: 70 F. App'x 129
Docket Number: No. 03-6317
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Earl L. HAWKINS, Jr., Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before WIDENER, MICHAEL and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 70
Pages: 129–130

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Earl L. HAWKINS, Jr., Defendant-Appellant.
No. 03-6317.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted July 18, 2003.
Decided July 28, 2003.
Earl L. Hawkins, Jr., Appellant Pro Se. William Edward Fitzpatrick, Andrea Bellaire, Office of the United States Attorney, Alexandria, Virginia, for Appellee.
Before WIDENER, MICHAEL and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM.
Earl L. Hawkins, Jr., a federal prisoner, seeks to appeal the district court's order denying relief on his motion filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000). 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 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, 123 S.Ct. 1029, 1040, 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.), cert. denied, 534 U.S. 941, 122 S.Ct. 318, 151 L.Ed.2d 237 (2001). We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Hawkins has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the ap peal. 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.