UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 03-6979
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
versus
LAWRENCE WILLIAM BYRD, a/k/a Sun,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Richmond. James R. Spencer, District
Judge. (CR-00-154; CA-03-183-3)
Submitted: December 18, 2003 Decided: January 15, 2004
Before LUTTIG, SHEDD, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Lawrence William Byrd, Appellant Pro Se. Brian Ronald Hood,
Assistant United States Attorney, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:
Lawrence William Byrd seeks to appeal the district
court’s orders denying relief on his motion filed under 28 U.S.C.
§ 2255 (2000), and denying his motion for reconsideration. An
appeal may not be taken from a 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 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,
336 (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 Byrd 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