Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Peter Lloyd COLEY, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2004-03-19
Citations: 90 F. App'x 48
Docket Number: No. 04-6039
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, v. Peter Lloyd COLEY, Defendant—Appellant.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 90
Pages: 48–48

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, v. Peter Lloyd COLEY, Defendant—Appellant.
No. 04-6039.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted March 11, 2004.
Decided March 19, 2004.
Peter Lloyd Coley, Appellant pro se. Donald Ray Wolthuis, Office of the United States Attorney, Roanoke, Virginia, for Appellee.
Before WIDENER, WILKINSON, and MICHAEL, 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Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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.
Peter Lloyd Coley seeks to appeal the district court's order denying relief on his petition filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000). 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 for claims addressed by a district court 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 Coley has not made the requisite showing.
Accordingly, we deny Coley 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