Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Shawn Leigh JONES, a/k/a Shawn Lee Jones, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2003-08-11
Citations: 71 F. App'x 237
Docket Number: No. 03-6113
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Shawn Leigh JONES, a/k/a Shawn Lee Jones, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before NIEMEYER, LUTTIG, and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 71
Pages: 237–238

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Shawn Leigh JONES, a/k/a Shawn Lee Jones, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 03-6113.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted July 22, 2003.
Decided Aug. 11, 2003.
Shawn Leigh Jones, Appellant Pro Se. Janet S. Reincke, Office of the United States Attorney, Norfolk, Virginia, for Appellee.
Before NIEMEYER, LUTTIG, and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM.
Shawn Leigh Jones seeks to appeal the district court's order denying relief on his petition 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 appeal-ability 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, 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 Jones 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 in the decisional process.
DISMISSED.