UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 03-6570
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
versus
JEFFREY ROWE,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Alexandria. James C. Cacheris, Senior
District Judge. (CR-99-446-A, CA-02-251-A)
Submitted: August 14, 2003 Decided: August 21, 2003
Before WILLIAMS, KING, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Jeffrey Rowe, Appellant Pro Se. G. David Hackney, Assistant United
States Attorney, Alexandria, Virginia, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:
Jeffrey Rowe 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 for claims addressed by a district
court 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, ,
S. Ct. 1029, 1040 (2003); Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484
(2000); Rose v. Lee, 252 F.3d 676, 683 (4th Cir.), cert. denied,
534 U.S. 941 (2001).
We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that
Rowe 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
2