Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Nathan SOLOMON, a/k/a Bradley Allen Van Petten, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2009-03-17
Citations: 317 F. App'x 375
Docket Number: No. 08-6799
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Nathan SOLOMON, a/k/a Bradley Allen Van Petten, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before NIEMEYER, MICHAEL, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 317
Pages: 375–376

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Nathan SOLOMON, a/k/a Bradley Allen Van Petten, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 08-6799.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: Feb. 13, 2009.
Decided: March 17, 2009.
Nathan Solomon, Appellant Pro Se. Rose Mary Sheppard Parham, Assistant United States Attorney, Florence, South Carolina, for Appellee.
Before NIEMEYER, MICHAEL, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Nathan Solomon seeks to appeal the district court's orders denying relief in part and granting relief in part on his 28 U.S.C.A § 2255 (West 2000 & Supp.2008) motion. The orders are not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2006). A certificate of ap-pealability 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 Solomon 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.