Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Raj Kumar BANSAL, a/k/a Old Man, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2009-07-01
Citations: 328 F. App'x 168
Docket Number: No. 09-6461
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Raj Kumar BANSAL, a/k/a Old Man, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before MICHAEL, TRAXLER, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 328
Pages: 168–169

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Raj Kumar BANSAL, a/k/a Old Man, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 09-6461.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: June 22, 2009.
Decided: July 1, 2009.
Raj Kumar Bansal, Appellant Pro Se. Daniel Joseph Grooms, III, Assistant United States Attorney, Alexandria, Virginia, for Appellee.
Before MICHAEL, TRAXLER, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Raj Kumar Bansal seeks to appeal the district court's order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West Supp. 2008) motion. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2006). 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 sat isfies 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 Bansal 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.