Case Name: Roosevelt Cornell SANDERS, Petitioner-Appellant, v. UNITED STATES of America, Respondent-Appellee
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2004-08-19
Citations: 107 F. App'x 350
Docket Number: No. 03-7694
Parties: Roosevelt Cornell SANDERS, Petitioner—Appellant, v. UNITED STATES of America, Respondent—Appellee.
Judges: Before NIEMEYER and GREGORY, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 107
Pages: 350–350

Head Matter:
Roosevelt Cornell SANDERS, Petitioner—Appellant, v. UNITED STATES of America, Respondent—Appellee.
No. 03-7694.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted July 21, 2004.
Decided Aug. 19, 2004.
Roosevelt Cornell Sanders, Appellant pro se. Marvin Jennings Caughman, Assistant United States Attorney, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellee.
Before NIEMEYER and GREGORY, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.
Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
Roosevelt Cornell Sanders seeks to appeal the district court's judgment denying his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000) motion as a second or successive motion without authorization from this court and denying his motions for reconsideration. The judgment and orders are 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, 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 Sanders 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
By order filed March 23, 2004, this appeal was placed in abeyance for Jones v. Braxton, No. 03-6891. In view of our recent decision in Reid v. Angelone, 369 F.3d 363 (4th Cir. 2004), we no longer find it necessary to hold this case in abeyance for Jones.