Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Donald CAMPBELL, a/k/a Louis Butler, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2003-09-24
Citations: 76 F. App'x 505
Docket Number: No. 03-7036
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Donald CAMPBELL, a/k/a Louis Butler, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 76
Pages: 505–506

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Donald CAMPBELL, a/k/a Louis Butler, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 03-7036.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted Sept. 11, 2003.
Decided Sept. 24, 2003.
Donald Campbell, Appellant Pro Se. Mythili Raman, Gina Laurie Simms, Office of the United States Attorney, Greenbelt, Maryland, for Appellee.
Before WIDENER, LUTTIG, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM.
Donald Campbell seeks to appeal the district court's order denying relief on his motion filed 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, 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 Campbell has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny Campbell's motion for 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.