
    UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Vincent Eugene LINEBERGER, Defendant-Appellant.
    No. 03-6155.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
    Submitted Oct. 23, 2003.
    Decided Oct. 30, 2003.
    Vincent Eugene Lineberger, Appellant Pro Se. Brian Lee Whisler, Office of the United States Attorney, Norfolk, Virginia; Holly Anne Pierson, Office of the United States Attorney, Charlotte, North Carolina, for Appellee.
    Before WILLIAMS, MOTZ and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.
    Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
   PER CURIAM.

Vincent Eugene Lineberger seeks to appeal from the district court’s orders denying relief on his motion filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000), and denying his motions for discovery, for bail, for a stay of his resentencing, and for entry of judgment pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 58. The orders are 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, 123 S.Ct. 1029, 1039, 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 Lineberger 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.  