Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Bryant JONES, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2004-12-01
Citations: 113 F. App'x 572
Docket Number: No. 04-7446
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Bryant JONES, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before LUTTIG and GREGORY, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 113
Pages: 572–573

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Bryant JONES, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 04-7446.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: Nov. 18, 2004.
Decided: Dec. 1, 2004.
Bryant Jones, Appellant pro se.
Patricia Marie Haynes, Office of the United States Attorney, Alexandria, Virginia, for Appellee.
Before LUTTIG and GREGORY, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
Bryant Jones seeks to appeal the district court's order denying his motion for a certificate of appealability to appeal the court's denial of relief on his motion filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (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 Jones 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