Case ID: f-appx_326/html/0201-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "PER CURIAM:", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, v. James Edward PHIFER, a/k/a Rick Daye, Defendant—Appellant.
    No. 08-8313.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
    Submitted: June 3, 2009.
    Decided: June 16, 2009.
    James Edward Phifer, Appellant Pro Se. Keith Michael Cave, Office of the United States Attorney, Charlotte, North Carolina, for Appellee.
    Before MICHAEL, TRAXLER, and KING, Circuit Judges.
   Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

James Edward Phifer seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West Supp.2008) motion and has moved this court for a certificate of appealability. 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) (2006). A prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that any assessment of the constitutional claims by the district court is debatable or wrong and that any dispos-itive procedural ruling by the district court is likewise debatable. Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 336-38, 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, 683-84 (4th Cir.2001). We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Phifer has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny Phifer’s motion for a certificate of appeala-bility 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.