Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Enrique Barragan CONTRERAS, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2009-06-22
Citations: 327 F. App'x 394
Docket Number: No. 08-6847
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, v. Enrique Barragan CONTRERAS, Defendant—Appellant.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 327
Pages: 394–395

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, v. Enrique Barragan CONTRERAS, Defendant—Appellant.
No. 08-6847.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: June 18, 2009.
Decided: June 22, 2009.
Enrique Barragan Contreras, Appellant Pro Se. Edward R. Ryan, Acting United States Attorney, Anne Magee Tompkins, Assistant United States Attorney, Kevin Zolot, Office of the United States Attorney, Charlotte, North Carolina, for Appellee.
Before NIEMEYER, GREGORY, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
Enrique Barragan Contreras 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 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 Contreras has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny Contreras's 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.