Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Curtis Allen YOUNG, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2006-01-30
Citations: 164 F. App'x 373
Docket Number: No. 05-6393
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, v. Curtis Allen YOUNG, Defendant—Appellant.
Judges: Before LUTTIG, WILLIAMS, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 164
Pages: 373–374

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, v. Curtis Allen YOUNG, Defendant—Appellant.
No. 05-6393.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: Jan. 26, 2006.
Decided: Jan. 30, 2006.
Curtis Allen Young, Appellant Pro Se. Timothy Richard Murphy, Special Assistant United States Attorney, Newport News, Virginia, for Appellee.
Before LUTTIG, WILLIAMS, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
Curtis Allen Young seeks to appeal the district court's order denying his motion filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000). The order is not appealable 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, 336-38, 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, 683-84 (4th Cir.2001). We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Young 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