Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Andre Walter MYERS, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2004-11-09
Citations: 112 F. App'x 304
Docket Number: No. 04-7107
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, v. Andre Walter MYERS, Defendant—Appellant.
Judges: Before WILKINSON, MOTZ, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 112
Pages: 304–304

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, v. Andre Walter MYERS, Defendant—Appellant.
No. 04-7107.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted Nov. 4, 2004.
Decided Nov. 9, 2004.
Andre Walter Myers, Appellant pro se. James Ashford Metcalfe, Assistant United States Attorney, Norfolk, Virginia, for Appellee.
Before WILKINSON, 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Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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.
Andre Walter Myers seeks to appeal the district court's order denying relief on his motion filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000). The order is not appealable 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, 336-38, 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 Myers has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny Myers' motion for a certifícate 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.