Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Duane Montrik BURTON, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2003-06-19
Citations: 67 F. App'x 214
Docket Number: No. 03-6497
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Duane Montrik BURTON, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before WIDENER, LUTTIG, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 67
Pages: 214–215

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Duane Montrik BURTON, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 03-6497.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted June 12, 2003.
Decided June 19, 2003.
Duane Montrik Burton, Appellant Pro Se. Michael Gordon James, Assistant United States Attorney, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee.
Before WIDENER, LUTTIG, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM.
Duane Montrik Burton seeks to appeal the district court's order denying relief on his motion filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000). The order is not appealable 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 de batable 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 Burton 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.