Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Monstsho Eugene VERNON, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2004-08-09
Citations: 104 F. App'x 303
Docket Number: No. 04-6147
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, v. Monstsho Eugene VERNON, Defendant—Appellant.
Judges: Before LUTTIG, WILLIAMS, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 104
Pages: 303–304

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, v. Monstsho Eugene VERNON, Defendant—Appellant.
No. 04-6147.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted May 28, 2004.
Decided Aug. 9, 2004.
Monstsho Eugene Vernon, Appellant pro se. Elizabeth Jean Howard, Office of the United States Attorney, Greenville, South Carolina, for Appellee.
Before LUTTIG, WILLIAMS, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM.
Monstsho Eugene Vernon seeks to appeal the district court's order denying relief on his motion filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000). The order is not appeal-able unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2000). A certificate of ap-pealability 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 independently reviewed the record and conclude that Vernon has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the ap peal. 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