United States of America v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, , 123 S. Ct. 1029, 1039 2003

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 03-6666
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
versus
VASU D. ARORA,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western
District of Virginia, at Roanoke. James C. Turk, Senior District
Judge. (CR-98-72-1, CA-01-305-7)
Submitted: September 30, 2003 Decided: October 7, 2003
Before WILKINSON, NIEMEYER, and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Vasu D. Arora, Appellant Pro Se. Steven Randall Ramseyer, OFFICE OF
THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Abingdon, Virginia, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).

-- 1 of 2 --

2
PER CURIAM:
Vasu D. Arora seeks to appeal the district court’s order
denying relief on 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, , 123 S. Ct.
1029, 1039 (2003); Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000);
Rose v. Lee, 252 F.3d 676, 683 (4th Cir.), cert. denied, 534 U.S.
941 (2001). We have independently reviewed the record and conclude
that Arora has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we
deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal.
Additionally, we deny Arora’s petition for mandamus relief, and
deny his motion for production of documents. 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 of 2 --