Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Gary L. DETEMPLE, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2004-02-25
Citations: 89 F. App'x 828
Docket Number: No. 03-6903
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Gary L. DETEMPLE, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before WILLIAMS and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 89
Pages: 828–829

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Gary L. DETEMPLE, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 03-6903.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted Jan. 16, 2004.
Decided Feb. 25, 2004.
Gary L. DeTemple, Appellant pro se. Robert H. McWilliams, Jr., Assistant United States Attorney, Wheeling, West Virginia, for Appellee.
Before WILLIAMS and TRAXLER, 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Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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.
Gary L. DeTemple seeks to appeal the district court's orders accepting the report and recommendation of a magistrate judge, denying relief on his motion filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000), and denying 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 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 indepen dently reviewed the record and conclude that DeTemple 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