Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Jerry INDUSTRIOUS, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2004-09-01
Citations: 108 F. App'x 108
Docket Number: No. 04-6307
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, v. Jerry INDUSTRIOUS, Defendant—Appellant.
Judges: Before WIDENER and SHEDD, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 108
Pages: 108–109

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, v. Jerry INDUSTRIOUS, Defendant—Appellant.
No. 04-6307.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted Aug. 26, 2004.
Decided Sept. 1, 2004.
Jerry Industrious, Appellant pro se. Sandra Jane Hairston, Assistant United States Attorney, Greensboro, North Carolina, for Appellee.
Before WIDENER and SHEDD, 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Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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:
Jerry Industrious seeks to appeal the district court's order accepting the 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. 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 Industrious 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
To the extent that Industrious attempts to raise issues in his informal brief that were not properly presented to the district court, we note that he cannot raise them for the first time on appeal. See Muth v. United States, 1 F.3d 246, 250 (4th Cir.1993).