Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Scott WILSON, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2004-06-29
Citations: 101 F. App'x 415
Docket Number: No. 03-7892
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Scott WILSON, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before WIDENER, LUTTIG, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 101
Pages: 415–416

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Scott WILSON, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 03-7892.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: May 26, 2004.
Decided: June 29, 2004.
John Dewey Elliott, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellant.
Michael Rhett DeHart, Assistant United States Attorney, Charleston, South Carolina, for Appellee.
Before WIDENER, LUTTIG, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 86(c).

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
Scott Wilson seeks to appeal the district court's order denying relief on his motion filed 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 Wilson 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