Paul Andrew STOKES, Jr., Petitioner-Appellant, v. UNITED STATES of America, Respondent-Appellee, 166 F. App'x 685

PER CURIAM: Paul Andrew Stokes, Jr., seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying relief on the claim in his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000) motion that counsel denied him the right to testify in his defense at trial. We previously remanded this claim to the district court for an evidentiary hearing. The district court has since held a hearing, denied relief on this claim, and entered an order to that effect. 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 the district court’s assessment of his constitutional claims is 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, 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 Stokes has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certifícate 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.