Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Paris Tiwand PULLEY, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2005-01-12
Citations: 119 F. App'x 504
Docket Number: No. 04-6333
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, v. Paris Tiwand PULLEY, Defendant—Appellant.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 119
Pages: 504–505

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, v. Paris Tiwand PULLEY, Defendant—Appellant.
No. 04-6333.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: Nov. 10, 2004.
Decided: Jan. 12, 2005.
Paris Tiwand Pulley, Appellant pro se.
Rudolf A. Renfer, Jr., Assistant United States Attorney, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee.
Before TRAXLER and KING, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
Paris Tiwand Pulley seeks to appeal the district court's order denying relief on his motion filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000) challenging the revocation of his supervised release and order denying his motion to reconsider. The orders are not appeal-able 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, 336-38, 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 Pulley 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