Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. James T. ROBINSON, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2004-07-16
Citations: 103 F. App'x 725
Docket Number: No. 04-6123
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. James T. ROBINSON, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 103
Pages: 725–725

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. James T. ROBINSON, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 04-6123.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted June 18, 2004.
Decided July 16, 2004.
James T. Robinson, Appellant pro se. Roderick Charles Young, Office of the United States Attorney, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee.
Before NIEMEYER, LUTTIG, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).

Opinion:
PER CURIAM.
James T. Robinson seeks to appeal the district court's orders, one accepting the report of and recommendation of a magistrate judge, and the other denying relief on his amended motions 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 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. 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 Robinson 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