UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 04-6632
VANCE KINGSBURY,
Petitioner - Appellant,
versus
MICHAEL GAINES,
Respondent - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western
District of Virginia, at Roanoke. Jackson L. Kiser, Senior
District Judge. (CA-03-93-7)
Submitted: October 14, 2004 Decided: October 19, 2004
Before MOTZ, TRAXLER, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Vance Kingsbury, Appellant Pro Se. Daniel M. Cisin, OFFICE OF THE
UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Washington, D.C.; Julie C. Dudley,
Assistant United States Attorney, Roanoke, Virginia, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:
Vance Kingsbury seeks to appeal the district court’s
order denying relief on his petition filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2241
(2000). 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); see
Madley v. Parole Comm’n, 278 F.3d 1306, 1309-10 (D.C. Cir. 2002).
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 Kingsbury 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 -