Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Kenneth Earl LOGAN, Jr., Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2004-08-05
Citations: 104 F. App'x 293
Docket Number: No. 04-6570
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Kenneth Earl LOGAN, Jr., Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before WIDENER and GREGORY, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 104
Pages: 293–294

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Kenneth Earl LOGAN, Jr., Defendant-Appellant.
No. 04-6570.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: July 19, 2004.
Decided: Aug. 5, 2004.
Kenneth Earl Logan, Jr., Appellant pro se.
Laura Marie Everhart, Assistant United States Attorney, Norfolk, Virginia, for Ap-pellee.
Before WIDENER and GREGORY, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
Kenneth Earl Logan, Jr., a federal prisoner, seeks to appeal the district court's orders denying relief on his motion filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000) and 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 both that his constitutional claims are debatable or wrong and that any dispositive procedural rulings by the district court are also debatable or wrong. See Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 336-38, 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 Logan 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