Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. John Vincent BAUMGARTEN, Jr.; John Vincent Baumgarten, Sr.; Anthony Quinn Baumgarten, Defendants-Appellants
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2003-06-04
Citations: 67 F. App'x 787
Docket Number: No. 03-6243
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. John Vincent BAUMGARTEN, Jr.; John Vincent Baumgarten, Sr.; Anthony Quinn Baumgarten, Defendants-Appellants.
Judges: Before WILKINSON, MICHAEL, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 67
Pages: 787–788

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. John Vincent BAUMGARTEN, Jr.; John Vincent Baumgarten, Sr.; Anthony Quinn Baumgarten, Defendants-Appellants.
No. 03-6243.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted May 29, 2003.
Decided June 4, 2003.
John Vincent Baumgarten, Jr., John Vincent Baumgarten, Sr., Anthony Quinn Baumgarten, Appellants Pro Se. Andrea L. Smith, Office of the United States Attorney, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellee.
Before WILKINSON, MICHAEL, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
Appellants seeks to appeal the district court's order denying relief on their motions filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000). The order is appealable only if 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 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, 1040, 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 that Appellants have 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.