Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Myron B. AULL, 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 721
Docket Number: No. 03-6029
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Myron B. AULL, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before LUTTIG and KING, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 63
Pages: 721–722

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Myron B. AULL, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 03-6029.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted May 15, 2003.
Decided May 22, 2003.
Myron B. Aull, Appellant Pro Se. Sean Kittrell, Office of the United States Attorney, Charleston, South Carolina, for Ap-pellee.
Before LUTTIG and KING, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.

Opinion:
Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
PER CURIAM.
Myron B. Aull seeks to appeal the district court's order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000) motion. 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 rea sonable 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, 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 Aull 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.