UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 04-6488
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
versus
EDWIN PEREZ,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Richmond. Robert E. Payne, District
Judge. (CR-99-124)(CA-02-122-3)
Submitted: July 15, 2004 Decided: July 21, 2004
Before MOTZ, KING, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Mary Katherine Martin, ELIADES & ELIADES, Hopewell, Virginia, for
Appellant. N. George Metcalf, Assistant United States Attorney,
Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:
Edwin Perez seeks to appeal the district court’s order
adopting the magistrate judge’s report and recommendation and
dismissing his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000) motion. 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,
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 Perez has not made the
requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of
appealability and dismiss the appeal. We also deny the motion to
amend the certificate of appealability. 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 -