Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Samuel Avant HAMILTON, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2004-04-09
Citations: 92 F. App'x 56
Docket Number: No. 03-7438
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Samuel Avant HAMILTON, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before WILKINSON, NIEMEYER, and KING, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 92
Pages: 56–57

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Samuel Avant HAMILTON, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 03-7438.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: March 17, 2004.
Decided: April 9, 2004.
Samuel Avant Hamilton, Appellant pro se.
Miller Williams Shealy, Jr., Office of the United States Attorney, Charleston, South Carolina, for Appellee.
Before WILKINSON, NIEMEYER, 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Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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:
Samuel Avant Hamilton seeks to appeal the district court's order denying relief on 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. 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 Hamilton 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