Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Brent Lamark LINDER, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2004-08-10
Citations: 104 F. App'x 309
Docket Number: No. 04-6507
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, v. Brent Lamark LINDER, Defendant—Appellant.
Judges: Before WILLIAMS, TRAXLER, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 104
Pages: 309–309

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, v. Brent Lamark LINDER, Defendant—Appellant.
No. 04-6507.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted July 30, 2004.
Decided Aug. 10, 2004.
Brent Lamark Linder, Appellant pro se. Alan Lance Crick, Assistant United States Attorney, Greenville, South Carolina, for Appellee.
Before WILLIAMS, TRAXLER, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM.
Brent Lamark Linder seeks to appeal the district court's order denying relief on his petition filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000). The order is appealable only if 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 Lin-der has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of ap-pealability and dismiss the appeal. We deny Linder's motion to hold the appeal in abeyance and to remand his case to the district court with instructions to grant or deny a certificate of appealability. 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