Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Alvin Wayne HARDESTY, Jr., Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2004-06-22
Citations: 100 F. App'x 955
Docket Number: No. 03-7739
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, v. Alvin Wayne HARDESTY, Jr., Defendant—Appellant.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 100
Pages: 955–956

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, v. Alvin Wayne HARDESTY, Jr., Defendant—Appellant.
No. 03-7739.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted June 10, 2004.
Decided June 22, 2004.
Alvin Wayne Hardesty, Jr., Appellant pro se. Odessa Palmer Jackson, Office of the United States Attorney, Greenbelt, Maryland, 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Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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.
Alvin Wayne Hardesty, Jr., a federal prisoner, seeks to appeal the district court's orders denying relief on his motion filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000), and denying his motion for reconsideration. The orders are not appealable 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 independently reviewed the record and conclude that Har desty has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny Hardesty's motion for 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