Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. McKinley David LITTLEJOHN, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2003-12-22
Citations: 84 F. App'x 286
Docket Number: No. 03-7321
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. McKinley David LITTLEJOHN, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before NIEMEYER and MOTZ, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 84
Pages: 286–286

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. McKinley David LITTLEJOHN, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 03-7321.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted Dec. 11, 2003.
Decided Dec. 22, 2003.
McKinley David Littlejohn, Appellant pro se. Thomas Richard Ascik, Office of the United States Attorney, Asheville, North Carolina, for Appellee.
Before NIEMEYER and MOTZ, 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Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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.
McKinley David Littlejohn seeks to appeal the district court's judgment denying his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000) motion. Littlejohn cannot appeal this order unless a circuit judge or justice issues a certificate of appealability, and a certificate of appeal-ability will not issue absent a "substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right." 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2000). A § 2255 movant meets 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, 123 S.Ct. 1029, 1039-40, 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 Littlejohn 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