Case Name: Joseph Shane MASSERANO, Petitioner-Appellant, v. UNITED STATES of America, Respondent-Appellee
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2004-07-08
Citations: 101 F. App'x 944
Docket Number: No. 04-6459
Parties: Joseph Shane MASSERANO, Petitioner-Appellant, v. UNITED STATES of America, Respondent-Appellee.
Judges: Before WILKINSON, WILLIAMS, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 101
Pages: 944–945

Head Matter:
Joseph Shane MASSERANO, Petitioner-Appellant, v. UNITED STATES of America, Respondent-Appellee.
No. 04-6459.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted June 23, 2004.
Decided July 8, 2004.
Joseph Shane Masserano, Appellant pro se. Thomas Linn Eckert, Assistant United States Attorney, Roanoke, Virginia, for Appellee.
Before WILKINSON, WILLIAMS, and GREGORY, 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Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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:
Joseph Shane Masserano, a federal prisoner, seeks to appeal the district court's order construing the petition that he filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (2000) as a successive 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000) motion and dismissing it without prejudice. 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 cer tificate 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 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, 434, 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 Masserano 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