Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Raeford Nathaniel MUNN, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2003-09-08
Citations: 73 F. App'x 652
Docket Number: No. 03-6840
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Raeford Nathaniel MUNN, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before NIEMEYER and SHEDD, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 73
Pages: 652–653

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Raeford Nathaniel MUNN, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 03-6840.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted Aug. 28, 2003.
Decided Sept. 8, 2003.
Raeford Nathaniel Munn, Appellant Pro Se. Winnie Jordan Reaves, Assistant United States Attorney, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee.
Before NIEMEYER and SHEDD, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.
Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
Raeford Nathaniel Munn seeks to appeal the district court's orders denying relief on his motion filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000) and denying reconsideration. 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 absent "a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right." 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2000). A prisoner sat isfies 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, 123 S.Ct. 1029, 1039, 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 Munn 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.