Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. James Joseph OWENS, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2005-02-17
Citations: 122 F. App'x 47
Docket Number: No. 04-7202
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, v. James Joseph OWENS, Defendant—Appellant.
Judges: Before WILKINSON, NIEMEYER, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 122
Pages: 47–48

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, v. James Joseph OWENS, Defendant—Appellant.
No. 04-7202.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: Jan. 12, 2005.
Decided: Feb. 17, 2005.
James Joseph Owens, Appellant pro se.
Barbara Dickerson Kocher, Office of the United States Attorney, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee.
Before WILKINSON, NIEMEYER, 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Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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:
James Joseph Owens, a federal prisoner, 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 constitu tional right." 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2000). A prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find both that the district court's assessment of his constitutional claims is debatable or wrong 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 Owens has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. The motions for appointment of counsel and for immediate release are denied. 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