Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Joseph JOHNSON, Jr., Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2005-02-04
Citations: 122 F. App'x 19
Docket Number: No. 04-7620
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, v. Joseph JOHNSON, Jr., Defendant—Appellant.
Judges: Before LUTTIG and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 122
Pages: 19–20

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, v. Joseph JOHNSON, Jr., Defendant—Appellant.
No. 04-7620.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted Jan. 27, 2005.
Decided Feb. 4, 2005.
Joseph Johnson, Jr., Appellant pro se. Michael Cornell Wallace, Office of the United States Attorney, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee.
Before LUTTIG and DUNCAN, 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Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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.
Joseph Johnson, Jr., a federal prisoner, seeks to appeal the district court's order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000) motion. An appeal may not be taken from the final order in a habeas corpus 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 tins 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 Johnson has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the ap peal. 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