Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Gary CUNNINGHAM, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2003-10-21
Citations: 78 F. App'x 288
Docket Number: No. 03-7255
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Gary CUNNINGHAM, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before LUTTIG, KING, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 78
Pages: 288–289

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Gary CUNNINGHAM, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 03-7255.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted Oct. 9, 2003.
Decided Oct. 21, 2003.
Gary Cunningham, Appellant Pro Se. Samuel Gerald Nazzaro, Jr., Assistant United States Attorney, Wheeling, West Virginia, for Appellee.
Before LUTTIG, KING, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM.
Gary Cunningham, seeks to appeal the district court's order adopting the magistrate judge's recommendation and denying relief on his motion filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000). 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 for claims addressed by a district court 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 both 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 Cunningham has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a cer tificate 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.