Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Edgar Nelson PITTS, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2004-08-03
Citations: 103 F. App'x 747
Docket Number: No. 04-6041
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Edgar Nelson PITTS, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 103
Pages: 747–747

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Edgar Nelson PITTS, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 04-6041.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: July 29, 2004.
Decided: Aug. 3, 2004.
Edgar Nelson Pitts, Appellant pro se.
Thomas Jack Bondurant, Jr., Assistant United States Attorney, Roanoke, Virginia, for Appellee.
Before LUTTIG, MICHAEL, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
Edgar Pitts seeks to appeal the district court's order denying a post-judgment motion in his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000) proceeding. Pitts cannot appeal this order unless a circuit judge or justice issues a certificate of appealability, and 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 habeas appellant meets 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 Pitts 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