Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Patrick STEVENS, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2003-07-16
Citations: 70 F. App'x 670
Docket Number: No. 03-6677
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Patrick STEVENS, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before WILKINSON, MOTZ, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 70
Pages: 670–670

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Patrick STEVENS, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 03-6677.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted July 10, 2003.
Decided July 16, 2003.
Patrick Stevens, Appellant Pro Se. Isaac Louis Johnson, Jr., Office of the United States Attorney, Greenville, South Carolina, for Appellee.
Before WILKINSON, MOTZ, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
Patrick Stevens 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, 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.), cert. denied, 534 U.S. 941, 122 S.Ct. 318, 151 L.Ed.2d 237 (2001). We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Stevens 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.