UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 03-6670
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
versus
MARCUS DARRELL MACK,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western
District of Virginia, at Roanoke. Norman K. Moon, District Judge.
(CR-97-40, CA-01-973-7)
Submitted: August 6, 2003 Decided: August 25, 2003
Before WIDENER, MICHAEL, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Marcus Darrell Mack, Appellant Pro Se. Joseph William Hooge Mott,
Assistant United States Attorney, Roanoke, Virginia, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:
Marcus Darrell Mack seeks to appeal the district court’s order
denying relief on his petition filed under §28 U.S.C. § 2255
(2000). An appeal may not be taken from the final order n a § 2255
proceeding unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate
of appealability. See 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, , 123 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 Mack 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