Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Martin TORRES-SALAZAR, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2003-09-25
Citations: 75 F. App'x 211
Docket Number: No. 03-6810
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Martin TORRES-SALAZAR, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 75
Pages: 211–211

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Martin TORRES-SALAZAR, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 03-6810.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted Sept. 10, 2003.
Decided Sept. 25, 2003.
Martin Torres-Salazar, Appellant Pro Se. Arnold L. Husser, Office of the United States Attorney, Greensboro, North Carolina, for Appellee.
Before WIDENER, NIEMEYER, and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM.
Martin Torres-Salazar seeks to appeal the district court's order accepting the magistrate judge's recommendation to dismiss his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000) motion. Torres-Salazar cannot appeal this order 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.), cert. denied, 534 U.S. 941, 122 S.Ct. 318, 151 L.Ed.2d 237 (2001). We have independently reviewed the record and conclude Torres-Salazar has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny his request to proceed in forma pauperis, 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.