Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. William Jackie PEARSON, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2004-11-03
Citations: 111 F. App'x 708
Docket Number: No. 04-6610
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, v. William Jackie PEARSON, Defendant—Appellant.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 111
Pages: 708–708

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, v. William Jackie PEARSON, Defendant—Appellant.
No. 04-6610.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted Aug. 20, 2004.
Decided Nov. 3, 2004.
William Jackie Pearson, Appellant pro se.
Thomas Richard Ascik, Office of the United States Attorney, Asheville, North Carolina, for Appellee.
Before WIDENER, LUTTIG, and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).
William Jackie Pearson, a federal prisoner, seeks to appeal the district court's order 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, 336-38, 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 Pearson 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.