Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. James Anthony McNALLY, Jr., Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2003-09-24
Citations: 76 F. App'x 499
Docket Number: No. 03-6837
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. James Anthony McNALLY, Jr., Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 76
Pages: 499–500

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. James Anthony McNALLY, Jr., Defendant-Appellant.
No. 03-6837.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted Sept. 11, 2003.
Decided Sept. 24, 2003.
James Anthony McNally, Jr., Appellant pro se. Carmina Szunyog Hughes, Assistant United States Attorney, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellee.
Before WIDENER, LUTTIG, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM.
James Anthony McNally, Jr., 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 appeal-able 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, 123 S.Ct. 1029, 1039-40, 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 McNally 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.