Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. George Kevin SAUNDERS, Defendant - Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2009-08-03
Citations: 329 F. App'x 387
Docket Number: No. 08-8267
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff — Appellee, v. George Kevin SAUNDERS, Defendant — Appellant.
Judges: Before MOTZ, KING, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 329
Pages: 387–387

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff — Appellee, v. George Kevin SAUNDERS, Defendant — Appellant.
No. 08-8267.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: July 30, 2009.
Decided: Aug. 3, 2009.
George Kevin Saunders, Appellant Pro Se. Bonnie S. Greenberg, Assistant United States Attorney, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellee.
Before MOTZ, KING, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
George Kevin Saunders seeks to appeal the district court's order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West Supp.2009) 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 appeal-ability 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 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 Saunders has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of ap-pealability 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.