Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Leonard COTTON, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2005-05-03
Citations: 127 F. App'x 114
Docket Number: No. 04-7062
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, v. Leonard COTTON, Defendant—Appellant.
Judges: Before WILLIAMS, KING, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 127
Pages: 114–115

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, v. Leonard COTTON, Defendant—Appellant.
No. 04-7062.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: April 28, 2005.
Decided: May 3, 2005.
Leonard Cotton, Appellant pro se.
Christine Manuelian, Office of the United States Attorney, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellee.
Before WILLIAMS, KING, 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Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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:
Leonard Cotton seeks to appeal from the district court's order dismissing 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 the district court's assessment of his constitutional claims is 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 Cotton 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