Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Clark PROCTOR, Jr., Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2004-06-01
Citations: 97 F. App'x 458
Docket Number: No. 03-7762
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, v. Clark PROCTOR, Jr., Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 97
Pages: 458–459

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, v. Clark PROCTOR, Jr., Defendant-Appellant.
No. 03-7762.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted May 19, 2004.
DECIDED: Decided June 1, 2004.
Clark Proctor, Jr., Appellant pro se.
Thomas Richard Ascik, Office of the United States Attorney, Asheville, North Carolina, for Appellee.
Before WILLIAMS and KING, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
Clark Proctor, Jr., seeks to appeal the district court's order summarily 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, 336-38, 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 Proctor 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