Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Salvatore COTTONE, a/k/a Sal, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2004-06-14
Citations: 100 F. App'x 888
Docket Number: No. 02-7810
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, v. Salvatore COTTONE, a/k/a Sal, Defendant—Appellant.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 100
Pages: 888–889

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, v. Salvatore COTTONE, a/k/a Sal, Defendant—Appellant.
No. 02-7810.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: May 28, 2004.
Decided: June 14, 2004.
Salvatore Cottone, Appellant pro se.
Justin W. Williams, Assistant United States Attorney, Alexandria, Virginia, for Appellee.
Before WILKINSON and KING, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
Salvatore Cottone seeks to appeal the district court's order denying relief on his motion that the court construed as a successive 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. § 2258(c)(1) (2000). A certificate of appealability mil 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 Cot-tone 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