Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Tommy WIGGINS, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2009-09-17
Citations: 332 F. App'x 80
Docket Number: No. 09-6329
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Tommy WIGGINS, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before MICHAEL, MOTZ, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 332
Pages: 80–80

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Tommy WIGGINS, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 09-6329.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: July 8, 2009.
Decided: Sept. 17, 2009.
Tommy Wiggins, Appellant Pro Se. Edward D. Gray, Anne Margaret Hayes, Assistant United States Attorneys, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee.
Before MICHAEL, MOTZ, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Tommy Wiggins 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 ap-pealability. 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 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 Wiggins has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny his 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.