UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 03-6810
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
versus
MARTIN TORRES-SALAZAR,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle
District of North Carolina, at Durham. Frank W. Bullock, Jr.,
District Judge. (CR-00-411, CA-02-377-1)
Submitted: September 10, 2003 Decided: September 25, 2003
Before WIDENER, NIEMEYER, and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Martin Torres-Salazar, Appellant Pro Se. Arnold L. Husser, OFFICE
OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Greensboro, North Carolina, for
Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:
Martin Torres-Salazar seeks to appeal the district court’s
order accepting the magistrate judge’s recommendation to dismiss
his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000) motion. Torres-Salazar cannot appeal
this order unless a circuit judge or justice issues a certificate
of appealability, and 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 habeas appellant 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 (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 Torres-Salazar has not made the requisite showing.
Accordingly, we deny his request to proceed in forma pauperis, 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