Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. William SOWELL, Sr., Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2004-11-30
Citations: 114 F. App'x 104
Docket Number: No. 04-7308
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, v. William SOWELL, Sr., Defendant—Appellant.
Judges: Before LUTTIG and GREGORY, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 114
Pages: 104–105

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, v. William SOWELL, Sr., Defendant—Appellant.
No. 04-7308.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted Nov. 18, 2004.
Decided Nov. 30, 2004.
William Sowell, Sr., Appellant pro se. Steven Hale Levin, Office of the United States Attorney, Greensboro, North Carolina, for Appellee.
Before LUTTIG and GREGORY, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.
Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).

Opinion:
PER CURIAM.
William Sowell, Sr., a federal prisoner, seeks to appeal the district court's order accepting a magistrate judge's recommendation to deny 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 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 Sowell 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