UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Travis Antone WADEN, Defendant-Appellant, 127 F. App'x 671

PER CURIAM: Travis Antone Waden seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying his motion filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000). The order is not appealable 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, 336-38, 123 S.Ct. 1029, 154 L.Ed.2d 931 (2003); Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484, 120 S.Ct. 1595, 146 L.Ed.2d 542 (2000); Rose v. Lee, 252 F.3d 676, 683 (4th Cir.2001). We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Waden has not made the requisite showing.

Accordingly, we deny the motion for a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. We deny as moot the motion to place this case in abeyance for King v. Louisiana,—U.S.-, 125 S.Ct. 627, 160 L.Ed.2d 463 (2004). 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