Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. David Allen WILSON, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2004-09-15
Citations: 109 F. App'x 531
Docket Number: No. 04-6959
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. David Allen WILSON, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before WILKINSON, MICHAEL, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 109
Pages: 531–532

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. David Allen WILSON, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 04-6959.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: Sept. 9, 2004.
Decided: Sept. 15, 2004.
David Allen Wilson, Appellant pro se.
John Leslie Brownlee, United States Attorney, Roanoke, Virginia, Rick A. Mount-castle, Office of the United States Attorney, Abingdon, Virginia, for Appellee.
Before WILKINSON, MICHAEL, 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Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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:
David Allen Wilson seeks to appeal the district court's order denying relief on his motion filed under Rule 60(b) seeking reconsideration of the denial of his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000) motion. 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, 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 Wilson 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