Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Percy Joe FISHER, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2004-07-02
Citations: 101 F. App'x 939
Docket Number: No. 04-6382
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Percy Joe FISHER, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before WILKINSON, NIEMEYER, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 101
Pages: 939–940

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Percy Joe FISHER, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 04-6382.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: June 24, 2004.
Decided: July 2, 2004.
Percy Joe Fisher, Appellant pro se.
Lisa Blue Boggs, Assistant United States Attorney, Greensboro, North Carolina, for Appellee.
Before WILKINSON, NIEMEYER, 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Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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:
Percy Joe Fisher seeks to appeal the district court's order construing his "motion to compel compliance with and performance of plea agreement" as a motion filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000) and denying relief. The order is not appeal-able unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2000). A certificate of ap pealability 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 Fisher 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