Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Jerry Glenn JOSHUA, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2005-12-29
Citations: 158 F. App'x 510
Docket Number: No. 05-6652
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, v. Jerry Glenn JOSHUA, Defendant—Appellant.
Judges: Before WIDENER, NIEMEYER, and KING, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 158
Pages: 510–510

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, v. Jerry Glenn JOSHUA, Defendant—Appellant.
No. 05-6652.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted Dec. 22, 2005.
Decided Dec. 29, 2005.
Jerry Glenn Joshua, Appellant Pro Se. James Ashford Metcalfe, Assistant United States Attorney, Norfolk, Virginia, for Appellee.
Before WIDENER, NIEMEYER, and KING, 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Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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:
Jerry Glenn Joshua, 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 post-conviction 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 this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that the district court's assessment of his constitutional claims is 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 Joshua has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. We grant Joshua's motion to file an addendum to his informal brief. 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