Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Drako Olandis SULLIVAN, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2004-02-23
Citations: 88 F. App'x 604
Docket Number: No. 03-7771
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, v. Drako Olandis SULLIVAN, Defendant—Appellant.
Judges: Before LUTTIG, WILLIAMS, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 88
Pages: 604–605

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, v. Drako Olandis SULLIVAN, Defendant—Appellant.
No. 03-7771.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted Feb. 12, 2004.
Decided Feb. 23, 2004.
Drako Olandis Sullivan, Appellant pro se. Isaac Louis Johnson, Jr., Office of the United States Attorney, Greenville, South Carolina, for Appellee.
Before LUTTIG, WILLIAMS, and MOTZ, 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Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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.
Draco Olandis Sullivan seeks to appeal the district court's order denying relief on his petition filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000). The order is appealable only if 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. 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 Sullivan 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