Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Daniel Lee GIBSON, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2004-02-23
Citations: 88 F. App'x 609
Docket Number: No. 03-7929
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, v. Daniel Lee GIBSON, Defendant—Appellant.
Judges: Before LUTTIG, WILLIAMS, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 88
Pages: 609–609

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, v. Daniel Lee GIBSON, Defendant—Appellant.
No. 03-7929.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted Feb. 12, 2004.
Decided Feb. 23, 2004.
Daniel Lee Gibson, Appellant pro se. Michael Lee Keller, Office of the United States Attorney, Charleston, West Virginia, for Appellee.
Before LUTTIG, WILLIAMS, and MOTZ, 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Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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.
Daniel Lee Gibson seeks to appeal the district court's order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and dismissing his motion filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000). 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 Gibson has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny Gibson'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