UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 04-6960
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
versus
MARK EARL HENDERSON,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern
District of West Virginia, at Charleston. Joseph Robert Goodwin,
District Judge. (CR-99-214; CA-03-480-2)
Submitted: August 13, 2004 Decided: September 9, 2004
Before WIDENER, LUTTIG, and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
John David Wooton, WOOTON, WOOTON & FRAGILE, Beckley, West
Virginia, Marcia Gail Shein, LAW OFFICE OF MARCIA G. SHEIN, P.C.,
Decatur, Georgia, for Appellant. Michael Lee Keller, OFFICE OF THE
UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Charleston, West Virginia, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:
Mark Earl Henderson 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. Henderson 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,
326 (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 Henderson 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 -