Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Sherrell Gary BRINKLEY, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2003-07-10
Citations: 68 F. App'x 481
Docket Number: No. 03-6159
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Sherrell Gary BRINKLEY, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 68
Pages: 481–482

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Sherrell Gary BRINKLEY, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 03-6159.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted June 30, 2003.
Decided July 10, 2003.
Sherell Gary Brinkley, Appellant Pro Se. Jennifer Marie Hoefling, Assistant United States Attorney, Asheville, North Carolina, for Appellee.
Before WILKINSON, WILLIAMS, and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM.
Sherrell Gary Brinkley, a federal prisoner, seeks to appeal the district court's order denying relief on his petition 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 for claims addressed by a district court 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 both 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, 1040, 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 Brinkley 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.