Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Tracey Lee HAIRSTON, a/k/a Uhms, 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 929
Docket Number: No. 04-6167
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, v. Tracey Lee HAIRSTON, a/k/a Uhms, Defendant—Appellant.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 100
Pages: 929–929

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, v. Tracey Lee HAIRSTON, a/k/a Uhms, Defendant—Appellant.
No. 04-6167.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted May 26, 2004.
Decided June 18, 2004.
Tracey Lee Hairston, Appellant pro se. Monica Kaminski Schwartz, Office of the United States Attorney, Ray McVeigh Shepard, Special Assistant United States Attorney, Charleston, West Virginia, for Appellee.
Before WIDENER, MICHAEL, and TRAXLER, 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Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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.
Tracey Lee Hairston seeks to appeal the district court's order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and dismissing his petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2000). We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Hairston has not made a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right. See Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 336, 123 S.Ct. 1029, 154 L.Ed.2d 931 (2003). Accordingly, we deny Hairston's motion for a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. See 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c) (2000). 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