Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Darryll Arthur PUGH, a/k/a Howie, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2004-08-16
Citations: 104 F. App'x 340
Docket Number: No. 04-6087
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, v. Darryll Arthur PUGH, a/k/a Howie, Defendant—Appellant.
Judges: Before WILKINSON, WILLIAMS, and KING, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 104
Pages: 340–340

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, v. Darryll Arthur PUGH, a/k/a Howie, Defendant—Appellant.
No. 04-6087.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted July 30, 2004.
Decided Aug. 16, 2004.
Darryll Arthur Pugh, Appellant pro se. Samuel Gerald Nazzaro, Jr., Assistant United States Attorney, Wheeling, West Virginia, for Appellee.
Before WILKINSON, WILLIAMS, and KING, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM.
Darryll Arthur Pugh seeks to appeal the district court's order adopting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and 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 Pugh 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