Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Joe Franklin SANDERS, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2004-10-15
Citations: 110 F. App'x 362
Docket Number: No. 04-7170
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Joe Franklin SANDERS, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 110
Pages: 362–363

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Joe Franklin SANDERS, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 04-7170.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted Oct. 7, 2004.
Decided Oct. 15, 2004.
Joe Franklin Sanders, Appellant pro se. Arthur Bradley Parham, Office of the United States Attorney, Florence, South Carolina, for Appellee.
Before WIDENER, NIEMEYER, and WILLIAMS, 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Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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.
Joe Franklin Sanders seeks to appeal the district court's orders denying relief on his motion filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000) and denying reconsideration. 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 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 Sanders has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny Sanders'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