UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 04-6041
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
versus
EDGAR NELSON PITTS,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western
District of Virginia, at Roanoke. James C. Turk, Senior District
Judge. (CR-94-68; CA-00-848-7)
Submitted: July 29, 2004 Decided: August 3, 2004
Before LUTTIG, MICHAEL, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Edgar Nelson Pitts, Appellant Pro Se. Thomas Jack Bondurant, Jr.,
Assistant United States Attorney, Roanoke, Virginia, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:
Edgar Pitts seeks to appeal the district court’s order
denying a post-judgment motion in his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000)
proceeding. Pitts 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, 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 Pitts 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
- 2 -