Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Randy Richard BROOKS, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2004-07-02
Citations: 101 F. App'x 932
Docket Number: No. 04-6676
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Randy Richard BROOKS, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before WILKINSON, NIEMEYER, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 101
Pages: 932–933

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Randy Richard BROOKS, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 04-6676.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: June 24, 2004.
Decided: July 2, 2004.
Randy Richard Brooks, Appellant pro se.
Sandra Jane Hairston, Assistant United States Attorney, Greensboro, North Carolina, for Appellee.
Before WILKINSON, NIEMEYER, 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Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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:
Randy Richard Brooks seeks to appeal the district court's order dismissing his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000) motion. Brooks cannot appeal this order unless a circuit judge or justice issues a certificate of appealability, and 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 habeas appellant meets 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 Brooks 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