Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Glenn Albert STEWART, Jr., Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2003-06-20
Citations: 67 F. App'x 220
Docket Number: No. 03-6616
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Glenn Albert STEWART, Jr., Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before WIDENER, LUTTIG, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 67
Pages: 220–221

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Glenn Albert STEWART, Jr., Defendant-Appellant.
No. 03-6616.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted June 12, 2003.
Decided June 20, 2003.
Glenn Albert Stewart, Jr., Appellant Pro Se. Lisa Grimes Johnston, Office of the United States Attorney, Wheeling, West Virginia, for Appellee.
Before WIDENER, LUTTIG, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM.
Glenn A. Stewart 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 constitu tional 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, 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 Stewart has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny Stewart's motion for 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.