Case Name: Gerald Randolph WALL, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. B. SHEARING, Warden, Defendant-Appellee
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2003-09-08
Citations: 73 F. App'x 654
Docket Number: No. 03-6867
Parties: Gerald Randolph WALL, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. B. SHEARING, Warden, Defendant-Appellee.
Judges: Before NIEMEYER and SHEDD, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 73
Pages: 654–655

Head Matter:
Gerald Randolph WALL, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. B. SHEARING, Warden, Defendant-Appellee.
No. 03-6867.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted Aug. 28, 2003.
Decided Sept. 8, 2003.
Gerald Randolph Wall, Appellant Pro Se. Steven Hale Levin, Office of The United States Attorney, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellee.
Before NIEMEYER and SHEDD, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.
Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
Gerald Randolph Wall seeks to appeal the district court's order denying relief on his petition filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 but properly construed as a 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, 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 Wall has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability, deny leave to proceed in forma pauperis, 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.