Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Terry Alan NISEWARNER, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2004-05-19
Citations: 96 F. App'x 913
Docket Number: No. 04-6232
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, v. Terry Alan NISEWARNER, Defendant—Appellant.
Judges: Before WILKINSON, MOTZ, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 96
Pages: 913–913

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, v. Terry Alan NISEWARNER, Defendant—Appellant.
No. 04-6232.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted May 13, 2004.
Decided May 19, 2004.
Terry Alan Nisewarner, Appellant pro se. Laura P. Tayman, Assistant United States Attorney, Norfolk, Virginia, for Appellee.
Before WILKINSON, MOTZ, and DUNCAN, 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Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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.
Terry Allen Nisewarner appeals from the dismissal of his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000) motion to vacate his sentence. 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 jurists of reason 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 reviewed the record and conclude that Nisewarner has not made the requisite showing. We therefore 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 in the decisional process.
DISMISSED