Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Samuel Earl FRYAR, a/k/a Ali, a/k/a Samuel Fryer, a/k/a Samuel Earl Fryer, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2005-02-16
Citations: 121 F. App'x 534
Docket Number: No. 04-7872
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Samuel Earl FRYAR, a/k/a Ali, a/k/a Samuel Fryer, a/k/a Samuel Earl Fryer, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before WILKINSON, MICHAEL, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 121
Pages: 534–534

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Samuel Earl FRYAR, a/k/a Ali, a/k/a Samuel Fryer, a/k/a Samuel Earl Fryer, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 04-7872.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: Feb. 9, 2005.
Decided: Feb. 16, 2005.
Samuel Earl Fryar, Appellant pro se.
LeDora Knight, Office of the United States Attorney, Alexandria, Virginia, for Appellee.
Before WILKINSON, MICHAEL, and SHEDD, 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Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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:
Samuel Earl Fryar seeks to appeal the district court's order denying relief on his petition filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000). An appeal may not be taken from the final order in a proceeding under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000) unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appeal-ability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(B) (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, 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 Fryar 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