Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Ali Ram HASSON, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2006-09-05
Citations: 197 F. App'x 267
Docket Number: No. 04-7912
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, v. Ali Ram HASSON, Defendant—Appellant.
Judges: Before MICHAEL, MOTZ, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 197
Pages: 267–268

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, v. Ali Ram HASSON, Defendant—Appellant.
No. 04-7912.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: Aug. 31, 2006.
Decided: Sept. 5, 2006.
Ali Ram Hasson, Appellant Pro Se. Laura P. Tayman, Assistant United States Attorney, Norfolk, Virginia, for Appellee.
Before MICHAEL, MOTZ, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
Ali Ram Hasson seeks to appeal the district court's order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000) motion and denying his motion to amend. 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 any assessment of the constitutional claims by the district court is debatable or wrong and that any dispositive 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 Hasson has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny Hasson's motion for 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.