Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Eric Lamont WILSON, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2003-05-13
Citations: 62 F. App'x 546
Docket Number: No. 02-6279
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Eric Lamont WILSON, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before WIDENER and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 62
Pages: 546–547

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Eric Lamont WILSON, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 02-6279.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted April 29, 2003.
Decided May 13, 2003.
Eric Lamont Wilson, Appellant Pro Se. Harold Watson Gowdy, III, Elizabeth Jean Howard, Office of the United States Attorney, Greenville, South Carolina, for Appellee.
Before WIDENER and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.
Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM.
Eric Lamont Wilson seeks to appeal the district court's order denying relief on his motion 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 rea sonable 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, 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 Wilson 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.