Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Vassel MCFADDEN, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2004-02-19
Citations: 88 F. App'x 571
Docket Number: No. 03-7436
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, v. Vassel MCFADDEN, Defendant—Appellant.
Judges: Before WIDENER, WILKINSON, and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 88
Pages: 571–572

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, v. Vassel MCFADDEN, Defendant—Appellant.
No. 03-7436.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted Jan. 30, 2004.
Decided Feb. 19, 2004.
Vassel McFadden, Appellant pro se.
Laura Marie Everhart, Assistant United States Attorney, Newport News, Virginia, for Appellee.
Before WIDENER, WILKINSON, and MICHAEL, 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Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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.
Vassel McFadden seeks to appeal the district court's order denying his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000) motion. McFadden cannot appeal this order unless a circuit judge or justice issues a certificate of appealability, and 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 habeas appellant meets 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 McFadden 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