Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Donald William ARTHUR, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2003-07-09
Citations: 67 F. App'x 837
Docket Number: No. 03-6331
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Donald William ARTHUR, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before LUTTIG, MOTZ, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 67
Pages: 837–837

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Donald William ARTHUR, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 03-6331.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted June 13, 2003.
Decided July 9, 2003.
Donald William Arthur, Appellant Pro Se. Ray McVeigh Shepard, Special Assistant United States Attorney, Charleston, West Virginia, for Appellee.
Before LUTTIG, MOTZ, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM.
Donald William Arthur seeks to appeal the district court's order adopting the report and recommendation of the magistrate judge and 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 ladings by the district court are also debatable or wrong. See Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 123 S.Ct. 1029, 1040, 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 Arthur 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.