Case Name: Jerry SAUNDERS, a/k/a Jerry Sanders, Petitioner-Appellant, v. BUREAU OF PRISONS; Superintendent, Federal Correctional Institution Miami, Respondents-Appellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2005-01-11
Citations: 118 F. App'x 779
Docket Number: No. 04-7228
Parties: Jerry SAUNDERS, a/k/a Jerry Sanders, Petitioner—Appellant, v. BUREAU OF PRISONS; Superintendent, Federal Correctional Institution Miami, Respondents—Appellees.
Judges: Before LUTTIG, MICHAEL, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 118
Pages: 779–780

Head Matter:
Jerry SAUNDERS, a/k/a Jerry Sanders, Petitioner—Appellant, v. BUREAU OF PRISONS; Superintendent, Federal Correctional Institution Miami, Respondents—Appellees.
No. 04-7228.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: Nov. 19, 2004.
Decided: Jan. 11, 2005.
Jerry Saunders, Appellant pro se.
Before LUTTIG, MICHAEL, and MOTZ, 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Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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:
Jerry Saunders, a federal prisoner, seeks to appeal the district court's order denying relief on his petition characterized as a motion to vacate under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000). The order is not appeal-able 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 Saunders has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. Furthermore, we deny Saunders' motion for default judgment filed pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 55(a)(b)(2). 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