UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 04-6810
GREGORY ROLAND PRUESS,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
versus
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Defendant - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western
District of North Carolina, at Statesville. Richard L. Voorhees,
District Judge. (CR-97-300; CA-01-59-5)
Submitted: December 16, 2004 Decided: December 21, 2004
Before MICHAEL, KING, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Gregory Roland Pruess, Appellant Pro Se. Jennifer Marie Hoefling,
Assistant United States Attorney, Charlotte, North Carolina, for
Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:
Gregory Roland Pruess seeks to appeal the district
court’s order denying his motion for reconsideration of its order
denying Pruess’ motion for relief filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2255
(2000). 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 Pruess has not made the requisite showing.
Accordingly, we deny Pruess’ motion for remand, 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 -