Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Robert Keith ROSS, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2004-11-19
Citations: 112 F. App'x 935
Docket Number: No. 04-7038
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, v. Robert Keith ROSS, Defendant—Appellant.
Judges: Before WILKINSON, MICHAEL, and KING, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 112
Pages: 935–936

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, v. Robert Keith ROSS, Defendant—Appellant.
No. 04-7038.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted Oct. 29, 2004.
Decided Nov. 19, 2004.
Robert Keith Ross, Appellant pro se. Jennifer Marie Hoefling, Assistant United States Attorney, Charlotte, North Carolina, for Appellee.
Before WILKINSON, MICHAEL, and KING, 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Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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:
Robert Keith Ross appeals a district court's order dismissing his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000) motion. 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 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 Ross has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny Ross'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