Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. Kenyon Raheen GADSDEN, a/k/a Kenny R. Jones, a/k/a Todd Fuller, a/k/a Kenyon Raheen Gadsen, a/k/a Kenya, Defendant - Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2004-07-22
Citations: 103 F. App'x 503
Docket Number: No. 04-6682
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff — Appellee, v. Kenyon Raheen GADSDEN, a/k/a Kenny R. Jones, a/k/a Todd Fuller, a/k/a Kenyon Raheen Gadsen, a/k/a Kenya, Defendant — Appellant.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 103
Pages: 503–504

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff — Appellee, v. Kenyon Raheen GADSDEN, a/k/a Kenny R. Jones, a/k/a Todd Fuller, a/k/a Kenyon Raheen Gadsen, a/k/a Kenya, Defendant — Appellant.
No. 04-6682.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: July 15, 2004.
Decided: July 22, 2004.
Kenyon Raheen Gadsden, Appellant pro se.
Laura P. Tayman, Assistant United States Attorney, Norfolk, Virginia, for Appellee.
Before MOTZ, KING, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
Kenyon Raheen Gadsden seeks to appeal the district court's order recharacterizing his petition filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (2000) as a motion filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000) and dismissing it as untimely. An appeal may not be taken from the final order in a § 2255 proceeding 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 Gadsden has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certifícate 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