Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Michael Eugene WALTON, Jr., Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2003-09-10
Citations: 74 F. App'x 283
Docket Number: No. 03-7076
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Michael Eugene WALTON, Jr., Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 74
Pages: 283–284

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Michael Eugene WALTON, Jr., Defendant-Appellant.
No. 03-7076.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted Aug. 28, 2003.
Decided Sept. 10, 2003.
Michael Eugene Walton, Jr., Appellant Pro Se. Michael Cornell Wallace, Office of the United States Attorney, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee.
Before NIEMEYER and SHEDD, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.
Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM.
Michael E. Walton, Jr., seeks to appeal the district court's order dismissing his motion entitled "Actual Innocence as a Matter of Law and Lack of Subject Matter Jurisdiction," which the district court construed as a 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. 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 that Walton 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.