
    UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Denny R. GULLETT, Defendant-Appellant.
    No. 02-7720.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
    Submitted June 5, 2003.
    Decided June 25, 2003.
    Cheryl Johns Sturm, Chadds Ford, Pennsylvania, for Appellant. Michael Lee Keller, Office of the United States Attorney, Charleston, West Virginia, for Appellee.
    Before NIEMEYER and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.
    Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
   ON PETITION FOR REHEARING

PER CURIAM.

Denny R. Gullett was convicted following a jury trial of one count of maliciously damaging and destroying and attempting to damage and destroy by means of an explosive a building used in interstate commerce that resulted in death in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 844(i) (2000). Gullett was sentenced to thirty-eight years in prison and five years of supervised release. Gullett filed a 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000) motion to vacate his sentence. The magistrate judge recommended dismissal of Gullett’s claims. Following an evidentiary hearing on the issue of whether there had been improper contact during trial between a juror and the prosecution and a prosecution witness, the district court denied the motion.

An 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, 123 S.Ct. 1029, 1040, 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.), cert, denied, 534 U.S. 941, 122 S.Ct. 318, 151 L.Ed.2d 237 (2001). We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Gullett 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.  