Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Ernest Alexander ANDERSON, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2004-12-20
Citations: 115 F. App'x 173
Docket Number: No. 04-6554
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Ernest Alexander ANDERSON, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 115
Pages: 173–174

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Ernest Alexander ANDERSON, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 04-6554.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: Dec. 16, 2004.
Decided: Dec. 20, 2004.
Ernest Alexander Anderson, Appellant pro se.
Bruce A. Pagel, Office of the United States Attorney, Charlottesville, Virginia, for Appellee.
Before MICHAEL, KING, and SHEDD, 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Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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:
Ernest Alexander Anderson, a federal prisoner, 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 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 Anderson has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny Anderson's motion for 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