Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Antonio Estrada PRECIADO, a/k/a Antonio Estrada, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2004-09-07
Citations: 105 F. App'x 522
Docket Number: No. 04-6393
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Antonio Estrada PRECIADO, a/k/a Antonio Estrada, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before LUTTIG, TRAXLER, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 105
Pages: 522–523

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Antonio Estrada PRECIADO, a/k/a Antonio Estrada, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 04-6393.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: July 30, 2004.
Decided: Sept. 7, 2004.
Antonio Estrada Preciado, Appellant pro se.
Steven Hale Levin, Office of the United States Attorney, Greensboro, North Carolina, for Appellee.
Before LUTTIG, TRAXLER, and GREGORY, 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Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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:
Antonio Estrada Preciado, a federal prisoner, seeks to appeal the district court's order denying relief on his petition 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 mil not issue for claims addressed by a district court 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 both that his constitutional claims are debatable or wrong 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 Preciado 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