Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Brian Antwanine JOHNSON, a/k/a Fudd, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2003-12-03
Citations: 81 F. App'x 793
Docket Number: No. 03-6986
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, v. Brian Antwanine JOHNSON, a/k/a Fudd, Defendant—Appellant.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 81
Pages: 793–794

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, v. Brian Antwanine JOHNSON, a/k/a Fudd, Defendant—Appellant.
No. 03-6986.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted Nov. 19, 2003.
Decided Dec. 3, 2003.
Brian Antwanine Johnson, Appellant pro se.
Gordon Dean Kromberg, Office of the United States Attorney, Alexandria, Virginia, for Appellee.
Before WILKINSON and GREGORY, 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Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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.
Brian Antwanine Johnson seeks to appeal the district court's orders denying relief on his motions filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000), and Fed.R.Civ.P. 59(e). The orders are not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2258(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. § 2258(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 Johnson has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny Johnson'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