Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Ernest Earl McLAMB, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2003-09-24
Citations: 76 F. App'x 500
Docket Number: No. 03-6877
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Ernest Earl McLAMB, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 76
Pages: 500–501

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Ernest Earl McLAMB, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 03-6877.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted Sept. 11, 2003.
Decided Sept. 24, 2003.
Ernest Earl McLamb, Appellant Pro Se. J. Frank Bradsher, Office of the United States Attorney, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee.
Before WIDENER, LUTTIG, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM.
Ernest Earl McLamb 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 appealable 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, 123 S.Ct. 1029, 1039-40, 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.), cert. denied, 534 U.S. 941, 122 S.Ct. 318, 151 L.Ed.2d 237 (2001). We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that McLamb 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.