UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 04-7153
LUKE ALLEN,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
versus
JOSEPH M. BROOKS, Warden,
Defendant - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle
District of North Carolina, at Durham. James A. Beaty, Jr.,
District Judge. (CA-03-912-1)
Submitted: October 14, 2004 Decided: October 22, 2004
Before MOTZ, TRAXLER, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Luke Allen, Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:
Luke Allen seeks to appeal the district court’s order
denying relief on his motion filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (2000),
but construed by the district court as a motion filed under 28
U.S.C. § 2255 (2000). We find that the district court properly
construed Allen’s motion as one filed under § 2255. 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 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 Allen has not made the requisite
showing. Accordingly, we deny Allen’s motion for 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 -