Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Phillip Ernest DIXON, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2004-12-02
Citations: 114 F. App'x 116
Docket Number: No. 04-6981
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, v. Phillip Ernest DIXON, Defendant—Appellant.
Judges: Before MOTZ, KING, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 114
Pages: 116–117

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, v. Phillip Ernest DIXON, Defendant—Appellant.
No. 04-6981.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted Nov. 19, 2004.
Decided Dec. 2, 2004.
Phillip Ernest Dixon, Appellant pro se. Sandra Jane Hairston, Assistant United States Attorney, Greensboro, North Carolina, for Appellee.
Before MOTZ, KING, 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Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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.
Phillip Ernest Dixon seeks to appeal the district court's order accepting the recommendation of a magistrate judge and denying relief on 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 sub stantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right." 28 U.S.C. § 2258(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 Dixon 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