Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Richard Earl ALLEN, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2005-01-13
Citations: 119 F. App'x 513
Docket Number: No. 04-6955
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, v. Richard Earl ALLEN, Defendant—Appellant.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 119
Pages: 513–514

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, v. Richard Earl ALLEN, Defendant—Appellant.
No. 04-6955.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: Dec. 17, 2004.
Decided: Jan. 13, 2005.
Richard Earl Allen, Appellant pro se.
Robert Albert Jamison Lang, Office of the United States Attorney, Greensboro, North Carolina, for Appellee.
Before WILLIAMS, MICHAEL, and MOTZ, 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Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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:
Richard Earl Allen, a federal prisoner, 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 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 the district court's assessment of his constitutional claims is debatable or wrong and that any dispositive procedural rulings by the district court are also debatable or wrong. See Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 336-38, 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 rec ord and conclude that Allen has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. We deny Allen's motion to consider the merits of an issue raised not in this action but instead, in a 28 U.S.C. § 2244 (2000) motion. 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