Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Richard Angelo BREWINGTON, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2004-06-18
Citations: 100 F. App'x 920
Docket Number: No. 04-6298
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, v. Richard Angelo BREWINGTON, Defendant—Appellant.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 100
Pages: 920–921

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, v. Richard Angelo BREWINGTON, Defendant—Appellant.
No. 04-6298.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted June 10, 2004.
Decided June 18, 2004.
Richard Angelo Brewington, Appellant pro se. Christine Witcover Dean, Assistant United States Attorney, Jennifer P. May-Parker, Office of the United States Attorney, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee.
Before WILLIAMS and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior District Judge.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).

Opinion:
PER CURIAM.
Richard Angelo Brewington seeks to appeal the district court's order denying relief on 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 Brewington 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