United States v. Bullock

                             UNPUBLISHED

                   UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                       FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT


                             No. 04-6104



UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                                               Plaintiff - Appellee,

          versus


TERENCE DEWAYNE BULLOCK,

                                             Defendant - Appellant.


Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Newport News.   Jerome B. Friedman,
District Judge. (CR-00-60; CA-03-24-4)


Submitted:   March 8, 2004                 Decided:   March 29, 2004


Before NIEMEYER, WILLIAMS, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.


Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.


Jon Michael Babineau, SAUNDERS, BABINEAU, BREWBAKER, Suffolk,
Virginia, for Appellant. Timothy Richard Murphy, Special Assistant
United States Attorney, Newport News, Virginia, for Appellee.


Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:

           Terence Dewayne Bullock 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 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, 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 Bullock has not made the requisite

showing.

           Accordingly,   we    deny    Bullock   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 -