Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Donald Jerome FIELDS, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2004-06-18
Citations: 100 F. App'x 919
Docket Number: No. 04-6296
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, v. Donald Jerome FIELDS, Defendant—Appellant.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 100
Pages: 919–920

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, v. Donald Jerome FIELDS, Defendant—Appellant.
No. 04-6296.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted June 10, 2004.
Decided June 18, 2004.
Donald Jerome Fields, Appellant pro se. Steven Hale Levin, Office of the United States Attorney, Greensboro, North Carolina, 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Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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.
Donald Jerome Fields appeals the district court's order accepting the report and recommendation of a magistrate judge and denying his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000) motion to vacate his sentence. An appeal may not be taken to this court 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 jurists of reason 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 reviewed the record and conclude that Fields has not made the requisite .showing. We therefore 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 in the decisional process.
DISMISSED