Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Alan Vincent CHAPMAN, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2004-09-24
Citations: 109 F. App'x 612
Docket Number: No. 04-7112
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, v. Alan Vincent CHAPMAN, Defendant—Appellant.
Judges: Before LUTTIG, KING, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 109
Pages: 612–613

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, v. Alan Vincent CHAPMAN, Defendant—Appellant.
No. 04-7112.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted Sept. 16, 2004.
Decided Sept. 24, 2004.
Alan Vincent Chapman, Appellant pro se. Jamie M. Bennett, Robert Reeves Harding, Assistant United States Attorneys, Lynne Ann Battaglia, Office of the United States Attorney, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellee.
Before LUTTIG, KING, and DUNCAN, 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Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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:
Alan Vincent Chapman seeks to appeal the district court's order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000) motion. 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 Chapman 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