Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Mark DREW, a/k/a Stretch, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2004-12-21
Citations: 117 F. App'x 882
Docket Number: No. 04-6745
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, v. Mark DREW, a/k/a Stretch, Defendant—Appellant.
Judges: Before LUTTIG, GREGORY, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 117
Pages: 882–883

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, v. Mark DREW, a/k/a Stretch, Defendant—Appellant.
No. 04-6745.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted Nov. 19, 2004.
Decided Dec. 21, 2004.
Mark Drew, Appellant pro se. Arthur Bradley Parham, Office of the United States Attorney, Florence, South Carolina, for Appellee.
Before LUTTIG, GREGORY, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).

Opinion:
PER CURIAM.
Mark Drew seeks to appeal the district court's order granting the Government's motion for summary judgment and dismissing Drew's 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000) motion. 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 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 Drew 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.