Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Lewis Thomas CORNELL, 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 606
Docket Number: No. 04-6734
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, v. Lewis Thomas CORNELL, Defendant—Appellant.
Judges: Before WIDENER, NIEMEYER, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 109
Pages: 606–607

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, v. Lewis Thomas CORNELL, Defendant—Appellant.
No. 04-6734.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted Aug. 13, 2004.
Decided Sept. 23, 2004.
Michael W. Patrick, Law Office of Michael W. Patrick, Chapel Hill, North Carolina, for Appellant. Clifton Thomas Barrett, Assistant United States Attorney, Greensboro, North Carolina, for Appellee.
Before WIDENER, NIEMEYER, 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Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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.
Lewis Thomas Cornell seeks to appeal the district court's order adopting the magistrate judge's report and recommendation and dismissing his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000) motion. Cornell cannot appeal this order unless a circuit judge or justice issues a certificate of appealability, and 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 habeas appellant meets 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, 326, 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 Cornell 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