Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Kenneth Lewis YORK, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2005-06-17
Citations: 134 F. App'x 634
Docket Number: No. 05-6558
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, v. Kenneth Lewis YORK, Defendant—Appellant.
Judges: Before NIEMEYER and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 134
Pages: 634–634

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, v. Kenneth Lewis YORK, Defendant—Appellant.
No. 05-6558.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted June 9, 2005.
Decided June 17, 2005.
Kenneth Lewis York, Appellant pro se. Rick A. Mountcastle, Steven Randall Ramseyer, Office of the United States Attorney, Abingdon, Virginia, for Appellee.
Before NIEMEYER and DUNCAN, 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Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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:
Kenneth Lewis York seeks to appeal the district court's order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000) motion. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appeal-ability. 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, 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 York has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. We further deny York's motion to transfer. 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