Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Roddrick Kemtrell MCDONALD, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2005-01-05
Citations: 117 F. App'x 899
Docket Number: No. 04-7102
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, v. Roddrick Kemtrell MCDONALD, Defendant—Appellant.
Judges: Before MICHAEL, MOTZ, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 117
Pages: 899–899

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, v. Roddrick Kemtrell MCDONALD, Defendant—Appellant.
No. 04-7102.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted Nov. 30, 2004.
Decided Jan. 5, 2005.
Roddrick Kemtrell McDonald, Appellant pro se.
Thomas Richard Ascik, Office of the United States Attorney, Asheville, North Carolina, Brian Lee Whisler, Assistant United States Attorney, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee.
Before MICHAEL, MOTZ, 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Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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:
Roddrick Kemtrell McDonald, a federal prisoner, seeks to appeal the district court's orders denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000) motion and motions for reconsideration. An appeal may not be taken from the final order in a habeas corpus proceeding unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2000). A certificate of appealability mil 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 McDonald 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