Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Robert Stanley HAYNES, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2003-07-11
Citations: 68 F. App'x 485
Docket Number: No. 03-6457
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Robert Stanley HAYNES, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 68
Pages: 485–486

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Robert Stanley HAYNES, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 03-6457.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted June 20, 2003.
Decided July 11, 2003.
Robert Stanley Haynes, Appellant Pro Se. Jerry Wayne Miller, Office Of The United States Attorney, Asheville, North Carolina, for Appellee.
Before LUTTIG, TRAXLER, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM.
Robert Stanley Haynes 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 appealability mil 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, 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 Haynes 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.