Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Edward Dane JEFFUS, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2005-02-09
Citations: 122 F. App'x 26
Docket Number: No. 03-6918
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, v. Edward Dane JEFFUS, Defendant—Appellant.
Judges: Before NIEMEYER, LUTTIG, and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 122
Pages: 26–26

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, v. Edward Dane JEFFUS, Defendant—Appellant.
No. 03-6918.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: Sept. 1, 2004.
Decided: Feb. 9, 2005.
Cheryl Johns Sturm, Chadds Ford, Pennsylvania, for Appellant.
Paul Alexander Weinman, Assistant United States Attorney, Greensboro, North Carolina, for Appellee.
Before NIEMEYER, LUTTIG, and WILLIAMS, 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Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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:
Edward Dane Jeffus seeks to appeal the district court's order denying relief on his self-styled, "Hazel-Atlas Action for Relief from Order Denying Section 2255 Motion." Jeffus argues the motion is made under the savings clause of Fed.R.Civ.P. 60(b).
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); Reid v. Angelone, 369 F.3d 363 (4th Cir.2004) (holding the certificate of appealability standard applies to appeals of denials of motions under Fed.R.Civ.P. 60(b)). 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 Jeffus 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