Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Antone Henry POINDEXTER, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2005-05-23
Citations: 132 F. App'x 437
Docket Number: No. 04-7958
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Antone Henry POINDEXTER, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 132
Pages: 437–437

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Antone Henry POINDEXTER, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 04-7958.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: May 11, 2005.
Decided: May 23, 2005.
Antone Henry Poindexter, Appellant pro se.
Paul Joseph McNulty, United States Attorney, Stephen Wiley Miller, Office of the United States Attorney, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee.
Before NIEMEYER, GREGORY, and DUNCAN, 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Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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:
Antone Henry Poindexter, a federal prisoner, seeks to appeal the district court's orders denying relief on his motion filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000). The orders are not appealable 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 the district court's assessment of his constitutional claims is 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, 683-84 (4th Cir.2001). We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Poindexter 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