Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Michael C. BRANNON, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2003-10-22
Citations: 78 F. App'x 307
Docket Number: No. 03-6352
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Michael C. BRANNON, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before LUTTIG, WILLIAMS, and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 78
Pages: 307–307

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Michael C. BRANNON, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 03-6352.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted July 16, 2003.
Decided Oct. 22, 2003.
Michael C. Brannon, Appellant Pro Se. Regan Alexandra Pendleton, Assistant United States Attorney, Greenville, South Carolina, for Appellee.
Before LUTTIG, WILLIAMS, and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM.
Michael C. Brannon, a federal prisoner, seeks to appeal the district court's order denying relief on his petition filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000). An appeal may not be taken 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 for claims addressed by a district court 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 both 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, 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 Bran-non has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability, dismiss the appeal, and deny Brannon's motion for appointment of counsel. 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.