UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 03-6662

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

versus

JAMES LYNN LYNCH,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina, at Durham. Frank W. Bullock, Jr., District Judge. (CR-99-322, CA-02-929-1)

Submitted: August 28, 2003 Decided: September 4, 2003

Before NIEMEYER and SHEDD, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.

Affirmed in part and dismissed in part by unpublished per curiam opinion.

James Lynn Lynch, Appellant Pro Se. Clifton Thomas Barrett, Assistant United States Attorney, Greensboro, North Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM:

James Lynn Lynch seeks to appeal the district court’s order

and judgment adopting the report and recommendation of the

magistrate judge and denying relief on his motion filed under

(2000) and his motion for downward departure. The

order and judgment is not appealable unless a circuit justice or

judge issues a certificate of appealability.

(c)(1)

(2000). A certificate of appealability will not issue absent “a

substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.”

(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,

, ,

(2003); Slack v. McDaniel,

(2000);

Rose v. Lee,

(4th Cir. 2001). We have

independently reviewed the record and conclude that Lynch has not

made the requisite showing. Accordingly, as for Lynch’s appeal from

that part of the order denying his § 2255 motion, we deny a

certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. We affirm

that part of the order denying his motion for a downward departure.

We grant his motion to proceed in forma pauperis. We dispense with

oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are

2 adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument

would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED IN PART; DISMISSED IN PART

3