Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Darrell Anthony RATHBURN, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2003-11-25
Citations: 81 F. App'x 780
Docket Number: No. 03-6945
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, v. Darrell Anthony RATHBURN, Defendant—Appellant.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 81
Pages: 780–781

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, v. Darrell Anthony RATHBURN, Defendant—Appellant.
No. 03-6945.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted Oct. 29, 2003.
Decided Nov. 25, 2003.
Darrell Anthony Rathburn, pro se. Jennifer Marie Hoefling, Assistant United States Attorney, Charlotte, North Carolina, for Appellee.
Before WILLIAMS and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).

Opinion:
PER CURIAM.
Darrell Anthony Rathburn 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 appeal-ability 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, 123 S.Ct. 1029, 1039, 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 Rathburn 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