Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Ryan Lee ZATER, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2003-05-22
Citations: 63 F. App'x 732
Docket Number: No. 03-6279
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Ryan Lee ZATER, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before LUTTIG and KING, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 63
Pages: 732–733

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Ryan Lee ZATER, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 03-6279.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted May 15, 2003.
Decided May 22, 2003.
Ryan Lee Zater, Appellant Pro Se. Stacey Denise Haynes, Office of the United States Attorney, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellee.
Before LUTTIG and KING, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.

Opinion:
Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
PER CURIAM:
Ryan Lee Zater seeks to appeal the district court's order denying relief on his motion filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000). The order is appealable only if a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of ap-pealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2258(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, 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 Zater 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.