Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Benjamin J. GILBERT, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2003-12-22
Citations: 84 F. App'x 282
Docket Number: No. 03-6858
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Benjamin J. GILBERT, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before LUTTIG, SHEDD, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 84
Pages: 282–282

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Benjamin J. GILBERT, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 03-6858.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted Oct. 31, 2003.
Decided Dec. 22, 2003.
Francis Samuel Brocato, Brocato, Price & Bushel, P.A., Baltimore, Maryland, for-Appellant. Michael Joseph Leotta, Office of the United States Attorney, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellee.
Before LUTTIG, SHEDD, and DUNCAN, 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Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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.
Benjamin Gilbert seeks to appeal the district court's denial of his motion for relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000) and the court's subsequent denial of his motion for reconsideration.
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). 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, 123 S.Ct. 1029, 1039, 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 Gilbert 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