Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Andre MANIGAULT, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2005-03-01
Citations: 122 F. App'x 77
Docket Number: No. 04-7437
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, v. Andre MANIGAULT, Defendant—Appellant.
Judges: Before WILKINSON, LUTTIG, and KING, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 122
Pages: 77–77

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, v. Andre MANIGAULT, Defendant—Appellant.
No. 04-7437.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted Jan. 28, 2005.
Decided March 1, 2005.
Andre Manigault, Appellant pro se. Mark C. Moore, Assistant United States Attorney, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellee.
Before WILKINSON, LUTTIG, and KING, 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Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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.
Andre Manigault 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 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. Dee, 252 F.3d 676, 683 (4th Cir.2001). We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Manigault 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