Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Sean Robert ADDISON, a/k/a Bounce, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2004-09-23
Citations: 109 F. App'x 607
Docket Number: No. 04-6581
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, v. Sean Robert ADDISON, a/k/a Bounce, Defendant—Appellant.
Judges: Before LUTTIG, MOTZ, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 109
Pages: 607–608

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, v. Sean Robert ADDISON, a/k/a Bounce, Defendant—Appellant.
No. 04-6581.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted Aug. 27, 2004.
Decided Sept. 23, 2004.
Sean Robert Addison, Appellant pro se. Marshall Prince, Office of the United States Attorney, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellee.
Before LUTTIG, MOTZ, and GREGORY, 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Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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.
Sean Robert Addison 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 appealable 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. 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 Addison has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the ap peal. 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