Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Calvin SNUGGS, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2003-08-22
Citations: 71 F. App'x 996
Docket Number: No. 03-7021
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Calvin SNUGGS, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before WILLIAMS, KING, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 71
Pages: 996–997

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Calvin SNUGGS, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 03-7021.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted Aug. 14, 2003.
Decided Aug. 22, 2003.
Calvin Snuggs, Appellant Pro Se. Steven Hale Levin, Office of the United States Attorney, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellee.
Before WILLIAMS, KING, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM.
Calvin Snuggs seeks to appeal the district court's order accepting the magistrate judge's recommendation to dismiss his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000) motion. Snuggs cannot appeal this order unless a circuit judge or justice issues a certificate of appealability, and a certificate of appealability will not issue absent a "substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right." 28 U.S.C. § 2258(c)(2) (2000). An appellant meets 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, 1039, 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 Snuggs has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny Snuggs' 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.