Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. John Anthony FRILANDO, a/k/a Chino Frilando, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2003-10-30
Citations: 79 F. App'x 599
Docket Number: No. 03-6866
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. John Anthony FRILANDO, a/k/a Chino Frilando, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before WILLIAMS, MOTZ and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 79
Pages: 599–599

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. John Anthony FRILANDO, a/k/a Chino Frilando, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 03-6866.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted Oct. 23, 2003.
Decided Oct. 30, 2003.
John Anthony Frilando, Appellant Pro Se. Alfred William Walker Bethea, Assistant United States Attorney, Florence, South Carolina, for Appellee.
Before WILLIAMS, MOTZ and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM.
John Anthony Frilando seeks to appeal the district court's order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000) motion. Frilando cannot appeal this order unless a circuit judge or justice issues a certificate of appealability, and a certificate of appeal-ability will not issue absent a "substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right." 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2000). A habeas appellant meets 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, 123 S.Ct. 1029, 1039, 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 Frilando 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.