Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Ronald Lee COUCH, Jr., a/k/a Diablo, a/k/a D, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2004-08-19
Citations: 107 F. App'x 348
Docket Number: No. 04-6323
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, v. Ronald Lee COUCH, Jr., a/k/a Diablo, a/k/a D, Defendant—Appellant.
Judges: Before WILLIAMS, MOTZ, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 107
Pages: 348–348

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, v. Ronald Lee COUCH, Jr., a/k/a Diablo, a/k/a D, Defendant—Appellant.
No. 04-6323.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted July 21, 2004.
Decided Aug. 19, 2004.
Ronald Lee Couch, Jr., Appellant pro se. Kevin Michael Comstock, Assistant United States Attorney, Norfolk, Virginia, for Appellee.
Before WILLIAMS, MOTZ, and GREGORY, 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Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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:
Ronald Lee Couch, Jr., 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 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 Couch 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