UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 03-6499
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
versus
KLYNE MILTON MCMAHAN, JR., a/k/a Mike McMahon,
a/k/a John Adams, a/k/a J.R.,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Henry Coke Morgan, Jr., District
Judge. (CR-96-203, CA-99-1507-2)
Submitted: October 27, 2003 Decided: November 21, 2003
Before NIEMEYER, MOTZ and, KING, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Klyne Milton McMahan, Jr., Appellant Pro Se. Fernando Groene, Kent
Pendleton Porter, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Norfolk,
Virginia, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:
Klyne Milton McMahan, Jr., 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 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, 1039 (2003); Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000);
Rose v. Lee, 252 F.3d 676, 683 (4th Cir. 2001). We have
independently reviewed the record and conclude that McMahan has not
made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of
appealability and dismiss the appeal. Further, we deny McMahan’s
motion for appointment of counsel and 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