Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. David MIDDLETON, Jr., Defendant-Appellant; United States of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. David Middleton, Jr., Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2003-10-31
Citations: 79 F. App'x 607
Docket Number: Nos. 03-7228, 03-7346
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. David MIDDLETON, Jr., Defendant-Appellant. United States of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. David Middleton, Jr., Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before WILLIAMS, MOTZ and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 79
Pages: 607–608

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. David MIDDLETON, Jr., Defendant-Appellant. United States of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. David Middleton, Jr., Defendant-Appellant.
Nos. 03-7228, 03-7346.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted Oct. 23, 2003.
Decided Oct. 31, 2003.
David Middleton, Jr., Appellant Pro Se. Miller Williams Shealy, Jr., Office of the United States Attorney, Charleston, South Carolina, for Appellee.
Before WILLIAMS, MOTZ and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM.
David Middleton, Jr., seeks to appeal the district court's orders denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000) motion and his subsequent Fed.R.Civ.P. 59(e) motion. Middleton cannot appeal these orders unless a circuit judge or justice issues a certificate of appealability, and 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 habeas appellant meets 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, 123 S.Ct. 1029, 1039, 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 Middleton has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeals. 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.