UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 04-6852
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
versus
THOMAS W. LEWIS, a/k/a Sluggo, a/k/a Big Tom,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Richmond. Robert E. Payne, District
Judge. (CR-93-139)
Submitted: November 18, 2004 Decided: November 24, 2004
Before LUTTIG and GREGORY, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judge.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Thomas W. Lewis, Appellant Pro Se. Paul Joseph McNulty, United
States Attorney, Alexandria, Virginia; Stephen Wiley Miller,
Assistant United States Attorney, Mary Hannah Lauck, OFFICE OF THE
UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:
Thomas W. Lewis, a federal prisoner, seeks to appeal the
district court’s order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2255
(2000) motion. 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 Lewis has not made the requisite showing.
Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the
appeal. We deny Lewis’s motion for appointment of counsel. 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 -