Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. William Anthony YOUNG, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2005-06-24
Citations: 136 F. App'x 570
Docket Number: No. 05-6164
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, v. William Anthony YOUNG, Defendant—Appellant.
Judges: Before MICHAEL, GREGORY, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 136
Pages: 570–570

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, v. William Anthony YOUNG, Defendant—Appellant.
No. 05-6164.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted June 13, 2005.
Decided June 24, 2005.
William Anthony Young, Appellant pro se.
William Kenneth Witherspoon, Office of the United States Attorney, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellee.
Before MICHAEL, 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Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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.
William Anthony Young, a federal prisoner, seeks to appeal the district court's orders denying relief on his motions to reconsider the court's earlier denial of his motion to vacate judgment pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000). 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); Reid v. Angelone, 369 F.3d 363, 367-70 (4th Cir.2004). 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 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 Young 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