Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Chester Fletcher WALLACE, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2004-08-09
Citations: 104 F. App'x 301
Docket Number: No. 04-6324
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Chester Fletcher WALLACE, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before LUTTIG, WILLIAMS, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 104
Pages: 301–301

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Chester Fletcher WALLACE, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 04-6324.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: July 19, 2004.
Decided: Aug. 9, 2004.
Chester Fletcher Wallace, Appellant pro se.
Lisa Blue Boggs, Assistant United States Attorney, Greensboro, North Carolina, for Appellee.
Before LUTTIG, WILLIAMS, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
Chester Fletcher Wallace seeks to appeal the district court's order denying relief on his motion 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 will 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 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 Wallace has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability, deny leave to proceed in forma pauperis, 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