Case Name: Odesa CASH, Petitioner-Appellant, v. UNITED STATES of America, Respondent-Appellee
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2004-12-20
Citations: 115 F. App'x 178
Docket Number: No. 04-7171
Parties: Odesa CASH, Petitioner-Appellant, v. UNITED STATES of America, Respondent-Appellee.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 115
Pages: 178–179

Head Matter:
Odesa CASH, Petitioner-Appellant, v. UNITED STATES of America, Respondent-Appellee.
No. 04-7171.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: Nov. 30, 2004.
Decided: Dec. 20, 2004.
Odesa Cash, Appellant pro se.
Christine Manuelian, Office of the United States Attorney, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellee.
Before LUTTIG, MOTZ, and DUNCAN, 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Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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:
Odesa Cash appeals from the district court's orders denying his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000) motion to vacate his sentence, his motion to reconsider, and his motion to alter or amend the district's order denying his motions for a certificate of appealability and for production of tapes and transcripts at government expense. An appeal may not be taken to this court 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 jurists of reason 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 reviewed the record and conclude that Cash has not made the requisite showing. We therefore deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. Cash's pending "Motion to Hold Appeal in Abeyance" is denied as moot. 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