Case Name: Yong Ho NAM, Petitioner-Appellant, v. UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2005-10-21
Citations: 146 F. App'x 661
Docket Number: No. 05-6973
Parties: Yong Ho NAM, Petitioner—Appellant, v. UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff—Appellee.
Judges: Before WIDENER, MICHAEL, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 146
Pages: 661–662

Head Matter:
Yong Ho NAM, Petitioner—Appellant, v. UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff—Appellee.
No. 05-6973.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: Oct. 18, 2005.
Decided: Oct. 21, 2005.
Yong Ho Nam, Appellant Pro Se. Patrick Friel Stokes, Office of the United States Attorney, Alexandria, Virginia, for Appellee.
Before WIDENER, MICHAEL, and DUNCAN, 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Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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:
Yong Ho Nam seeks to appeal the district court's order denying his motion filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000). An appeal may not be taken from the final order in a § 2255 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 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 Nam has 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