Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Earl E. RICHARDSON, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2003-05-22
Citations: 63 F. App'x 727
Docket Number: No. 03-6316
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Earl E. RICHARDSON, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before WIDENER, LUTTIG, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 63
Pages: 727–728

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Earl E. RICHARDSON, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 03-6316.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted April 18, 2003.
Decided May 22, 2003.
Earl E. Richardson, Appellant Pro Se. Stephen Wiley Miller, Office of the United States Attorney, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee.
Before WIDENER, LUTTIG, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
PER CURIAM:
Earl E. Richardson, a federal prisoner, seeks to appeal the district court's order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000) motion. An appeal may not be tak en 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)(2) (2000). A prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find both 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, 123 S.Ct. 1029, 1040, 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.), cert. denied, 534 U.S. 941, 122 S.Ct. 318, 151 L.Ed.2d 237 (2001). We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Richardson 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 no aid the decisional process.
DISMISSED.