Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Frederick Lee GILL, Sr., Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2004-07-26
Citations: 102 F. App'x 827
Docket Number: No. 03-7720
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, v. Frederick Lee GILL, Sr., Defendant—Appellant.
Judges: Before NIEMEYER and MOTZ, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 102
Pages: 827–827

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, v. Frederick Lee GILL, Sr., Defendant—Appellant.
No. 03-7720.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted June 30, 2004.
Decided July 26, 2004.
Frederick Lee Gill, Sr., Appellant pro se. Michael Lee Keller, Office of the United States Attorney, Charleston, West Virginia, for Appellee.
Before NIEMEYER and MOTZ, 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Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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:
Frederick Lee Gill, Sr., seeks to appeal the district court's order, partially adopting the report and recommendation of a magistrate judge, and denying relief on his motion 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 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. 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). After independently reviewing the record, we find that Gill has failed to make such a 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 the decisional process.
DISMISSED