Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Antonio Charles BLOW, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2005-12-07
Citations: 157 F. App'x 611
Docket Number: No. 05-7181
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, v. Antonio Charles BLOW, Defendant—Appellant.
Judges: Before MOTZ and SHEDD, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 157
Pages: 611–612

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, v. Antonio Charles BLOW, Defendant—Appellant.
No. 05-7181.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: Nov. 16, 2005.
Decided: Dec. 7, 2005.
Antonio Charles Blow, Appellant Pro Se. Charles Dee Griffith, Jr., Office of the United States Attorney, Newport News, Virginia, for Appellee.
Before MOTZ and SHEDD, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.
Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
Antonio Charles Blow, a federal prisoner, seeks to appeal the district court's order denying relief on his motion 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 both that the district court's assessment of his constitutional claims is debatable or wrong and that any dispositive procedural rulings by the district court are also debatable or wrong. See Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 336-38, 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 Blow 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