Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Bernard DISTANCE-BEY, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2003-06-17
Citations: 66 F. App'x 502
Docket Number: No. 02-7732
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Bernard DISTANCE-BEY, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before WIDENER, LUTTIG, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 66
Pages: 502–503

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Bernard DISTANCE-BEY, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 02-7732.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted June 12, 2003.
Decided June 17, 2003.
Bernard Distance-Bey, Appellant Pro Se.
Before WIDENER, LUTTIG, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM.
Bernard Distance-Bey seeks to appeal the district court's order denying relief on his motion filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000). 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 absent "a substantial showing of the denial of a constitution al 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 Distance-Bey has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny Distance-Bey's motion for appointment of counsel, 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.