Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Marcus Darrell MACK, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2003-08-25
Citations: 71 F. App'x 998
Docket Number: No. 03-6670
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Marcus Darrell MACK, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before WIDENER, MICHAEL, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 71
Pages: 998–999

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Marcus Darrell MACK, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 03-6670.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted Aug. 6, 2003.
Decided Aug. 25, 2003.
Marcus Darrell Mack, Appellant Pro Se. Joseph William Hooge Mott, Assistant United States Attorney, Roanoke, Virginia, for Appellee.
Before WIDENER, MICHAEL, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM.
Marcus Darrell Mack seeks to appeal the district court's order denying relief on his petition filed under § 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000). An appeal may not be taken from the final order n a § 2255 proceeding unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. See 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, 123 S.Ct. 1029, 1040, 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.), cert. denied, 534 U.S. 941, 122 S.Ct. 318, 151 L.Ed.2d 237 (2001). We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Mack 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.