Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Thomas Lee MOODY, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2004-06-30
Citations: 101 F. App'x 903
Docket Number: No. 04-6124
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Thomas Lee MOODY, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before MICHAEL, KING, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 101
Pages: 903–904

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Thomas Lee MOODY, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 04-6124.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: June 9, 2004.
Decided: June 30, 2004.
William Lyons Taliaferro, Jr., Rabinowitz, Rafal, Swartz, Taliaferro & Gilbert, P.C., Norfolk, Virginia, for Appellant.
Janet S. Reincke, Assistant United States Attorney, Newport News, Virginia, for Appellee.
Before MICHAEL, KING, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
Thomas Lee Moody, a federal prisoner, seeks to appeal the district court's order denying relief on his motion under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000). 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 mil 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 Moody 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 comet and argument would not aid the decisional process.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).
DISMISSED