Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Thomas D. HANLIN, Jr., Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2003-10-21
Citations: 78 F. App'x 283
Docket Number: No. 03-7179
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Thomas D. HANLIN, Jr., Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before LUTTIG, KING, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 78
Pages: 283–284

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Thomas D. HANLIN, Jr., Defendant-Appellant.
No. 03-7179.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted Oct. 9, 2003.
Decided Oct. 21, 2003.
Thomas D. Hardin, Jr., Appellant Pro Se. James Gerard Pyne, Assistant United States Attorney, Lynne Anne Battaglia, Office of the United States Attorney, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellee.
Before LUTTIG, KING, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM.
Thomas Dale Hardin, Jr. seeks to appeal the district court's order denying relief on his motion filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000). The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2000). A certificate of appealabdity 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 de batable 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, 1040, 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 Hanlin has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we 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.