Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. James Edward WILSON, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2009-01-13
Citations: 306 F. App'x 814
Docket Number: No. 08-7621
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, v. James Edward WILSON, Defendant—Appellant.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 306
Pages: 814–815

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, v. James Edward WILSON, Defendant—Appellant.
No. 08-7621.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: Nov. 25, 2008.
Decided: Jan. 13, 2009.
James Edward Wilson, Appellant Pro Se.
Rose Mary Sheppard Parham, Assistant United States Attorney, Florence, South Carolina, for Appellee.
Before NIEMEYER, GREGORY, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
James Edward Wilson seeks to appeal the district court's order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000) motion. 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 Wilson 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.