Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Lionel S. CHAMBERLAIN, a/k/a Lonnie, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2003-07-16
Citations: 70 F. App'x 669
Docket Number: No. 03-6652
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Lionel S. CHAMBERLAIN, a/k/a Lonnie, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before WILKINSON, MOTZ, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 70
Pages: 669–670

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Lionel S. CHAMBERLAIN, a/k/a Lonnie, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 03-6652.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted July 10, 2003.
Decided July 16, 2003.
Lionel S. Chamberlain, Appellant Pro Se. Joseph William Hooge Mott, Assistant United States Attorney, Roanoke, Virginia, for Appellee.
Before WILKINSON, MOTZ, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
Lionel Chamberlain seeks to appeal the district court's order dismissing his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000) motion. Chamberlain cannot appeal this order unless a circuit judge or justice issues a certificate of appealability, and 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 habeas appellant meets this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that his constitutional claims are debatable and that any dispositive pro cedural rulings by the district court are also debatable or wrong. See Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 123 S.Ct. 1029, 1039, 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 Chamberlain 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.