Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. James M. DEBARDELEBEN, Defendant - Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2004-07-28
Citations: 103 F. App'x 524
Docket Number: No. 03-7889
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff — Appellee, v. James M. DEBARDELEBEN, Defendant — Appellant.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 103
Pages: 524–524

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff — Appellee, v. James M. DEBARDELEBEN, Defendant — Appellant.
No. 03-7889.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: July 9, 2004.
Decided: July 28, 2004.
James M. DeBardeleben, Appellant pro se.
Before WILLIAMS, KING, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
James M. DeBardeleben seeks to appeal the district court's order dismissing as successive his motion to vacate, set aside, or correct sentence 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. See Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 338, 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 DeBardeleben has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. No active judge of this court has voted to grant hearing en banc and we therefore deny DeBardeleben's petition for initial hearing en banc.
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
By order filed April 6, 2004, this appeal was placed in abeyance for Jones v. Braxton, No. 03-6891. In view of our recent decision in Reid. v. Angelone, 369 F.3d 363 (4th Cir.2004), we no longer find it necessary to hold this, case in abeyance for Jones.