Case Name: William Thomas POPE, III, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Sam PRUETT, Warden; Gene Johnson, Director of Department of Corrections, Respondents-Appellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2005-08-25
Citations: 141 F. App'x 224
Docket Number: No. 05-6678
Parties: William Thomas POPE, III, Petitioner—Appellant, v. Sam PRUETT, Warden; Gene Johnson, Director of Department of Corrections, Respondents—Appellees.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 141
Pages: 224–225

Head Matter:
William Thomas POPE, III, Petitioner—Appellant, v. Sam PRUETT, Warden; Gene Johnson, Director of Department of Corrections, Respondents—Appellees.
No. 05-6678.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: Aug. 18, 2005.
Decided: Aug. 25, 2005.
William Thomas Pope, III, Appellant Pro Se.
Before WIDENER, WILLIAMS, 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Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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:
William Thomas Pope, III, seeks to appeal the district court's order 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 the district court's assessment of his constitutional claims is 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 Pope has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny Pope's motions for 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