Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Demond O'Neil PARKER, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2003-10-30
Citations: 79 F. App'x 596
Docket Number: No. 03-6749
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Demond O’Neil PARKER, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before WILLIAMS, MOTZ and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 79
Pages: 596–596

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Demond O’Neil PARKER, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 03-6749.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted Oct. 23, 2003.
Decided Oct. 30, 2003.
Demond O’Neil Parker, Appellant Pro Se. Anthony Paul Giorno, Office of the United States Attorney, Roanoke, Virginia, for Appellee.
Before WILLIAMS, MOTZ and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM.
Demond O'Neil Parker seeks to appeal the district court's order 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 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 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, 123 S.Ct. 1029, 1039, 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 Parker 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.