Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Willie Ray HAWKINS, Jr., Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2004-06-02
Citations: 98 F. App'x 256
Docket Number: No. 03-7869
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, v. Willie Ray HAWKINS, Jr., Defendant—Appellant.
Judges: Before WIDENER, MICHAEL, and KING, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 98
Pages: 256–257

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, v. Willie Ray HAWKINS, Jr., Defendant—Appellant.
No. 03-7869.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: May 27, 2004.
Decided: June 2, 2004.
Willie Ray Hawkins, Jr., Appellant pro se.
Harry L. Hobgood, Assistant United States Attorney, Greensboro, North Carolina, for Appellee.
Before WIDENER, MICHAEL, and KING, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
Willie Ray Hawkins, Jr., a federal prisoner, seeks to appeal the district court's order denying his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000) motion as successive. 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, 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 Hawkins 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