Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Emmanuel UZUEGBUNAM, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2005-02-18
Citations: 120 F. App'x 1000
Docket Number: No. 04-7764
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, v. Emmanuel UZUEGBUNAM, Defendant—Appellant.
Judges: Before LUTTIG, MICHAEL, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 120
Pages: 1000–1001

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, v. Emmanuel UZUEGBUNAM, Defendant—Appellant.
No. 04-7764.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted Jan. 28, 2005.
Decided Feb. 18, 2005.
Emmanuel Uzuegbunam, Appellant pro se.
Paul Joseph McNulty, United States Attorney, Aexandria, Virginia, for Appellee.
Before LUTTIG, MICHAEL, and GREGORY, 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Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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.
Emmanuel Uzuegbunam, a federal prisoner, seeks to appeal the district court's order construing his petition for a writ of error coram nobis filed under the Ml Writs Act, 28 U.S.C. § 1651(a) (2000), as a second or successive motion under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000), and dismissing it for lack of jurisdiction. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2000); see Reid v. Angelone, 369 F.3d 363, 368-69, 374 n. 7 (4th Cir. 2004). A certifícate 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, 336-38, 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 Uzuegbunam 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.