Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Bruce Wayne TART, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2004-03-30
Citations: 91 F. App'x 890
Docket Number: No. 03-7709
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, v. Bruce Wayne TART, Defendant—Appellant.
Judges: Before TRAXLER, KING, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 91
Pages: 890–891

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, v. Bruce Wayne TART, Defendant—Appellant.
No. 03-7709.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: March 25, 2004.
Decided: March 30, 2004.
Bruce Wayne Tart, Appellant pro se.
Steven Hale Levin, Office of the United States Attorney, Greensboro, North Carolina, for Appellee.
Before TRAXLER, KING, and DUNCAN, 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Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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:
Bruce Wayne Tart seeks to appeal the district court's order accepting a magistrate judge's recommendation and denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000) motion. This 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 Tart has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny Tart's motion for a certificate of appealability, deny his motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis, 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