UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 04-6897
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
versus
LAWRENCE GLEN GALLOWAY,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Newport News. Robert G. Doumar, Senior
District Judge. (CR-01-117, CA-04-5-4)
Submitted: September 16, 2004 Decided: September 22, 2004
Before LUTTIG, KING, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion..
Lawrence Glen Galloway, Appellant Pro Se. Lisa Rae McKeel, OFFICE
OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Newport News, Virginia, for
Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:
Lawrence Glen Galloway, a federal prisoner, seeks to
appeal the district court’s order denying his request for a
certificate of appealability in his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000) motion.
An appeal may not be taken from the final order in a habeas corpus
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 Galloway has not made the
requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of
appealability and dismiss the appeal. We deny Galloway’s motion to
amend his informal brief because it raises an issue not presented
in his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion before the district court. 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 -