Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Maurice Edgar McKENZIE, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2003-05-22
Citations: 63 F. App'x 724
Docket Number: No. 03-6134
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Maurice Edgar McKENZIE, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before LUTTIG and KING, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 63
Pages: 724–725

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Maurice Edgar McKENZIE, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 03-6134.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted May 15, 2003.
Decided May 22, 2003.
Maurice Edgar McKenzie, Appellant Pro Se. Robert Hayden Bickerton, Assistant United States Attorney, Charleston, South Carolina, for Appellee.
Before LUTTIG and KING, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.

Opinion:
Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
PER CURIAM:
Maurice Edgar McKenzie seeks to appeal the district court's order denying relief on 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 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 McKenzie 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.