Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Aloysius Wayne Stanley HALL, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2003-08-22
Citations: 71 F. App'x 985
Docket Number: No. 03-6839
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Aloysius Wayne Stanley HALL, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before WILLIAMS, KING, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 71
Pages: 985–986

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Aloysius Wayne Stanley HALL, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 03-6839.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted Aug. 14, 2003.
Decided Aug. 22, 2003.
Aloysius Wayne Stanley Hall, Appellant Pro Se. Alfred William Walker Bethea, Assistant United States Attorney, Florence, South Carolina, for Appellee.
Before WILLIAMS, KING, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM.
Aloysius Wayne Stanley Hall seeks to appeal the district court's order denying relief on his motion filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000), and a subsequent order denying his motion for reconsideration. 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 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, 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 Hall 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.