Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Shaheem JOHNSON; Raheem Johnson, Defendants-Appellants
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2004-08-02
Citations: 103 F. App'x 741
Docket Number: No. 03-7524
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Shaheem JOHNSON; Raheem Johnson, Defendants-Appellants.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 103
Pages: 741–742

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Shaheem JOHNSON; Raheem Johnson, Defendants-Appellants.
No. 03-7524.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: March 5, 2004.
Decided: Aug. 2, 2004.
Shaheem Johnson, Raheem Johnson, Appellants pro se.
William Neü Hammerstrom, Jr., Paul Joseph MuNulty, Office of the United States Attorney, Alexandria, Virginia, for Appellee.
Before LUTTIG, MICHAEL, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
Shaheem and Raheem Johnson seek to appeal the district court's order dismissing their 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000) motions. 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 the Johnsons have 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