Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Phillip Mark VAUGHAN, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2009-01-20
Citations: 307 F. App'x 752
Docket Number: No. 08-8038
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Phillip Mark VAUGHAN, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before WILLIAMS, Chief Judge, and TRAXLER and KING, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 307
Pages: 752–752

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Phillip Mark VAUGHAN, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 08-8038.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: Jan. 13, 2009.
Decided: Jan. 20, 2009.
Phillip Mark Vaughan, Appellant Pro Se. Matthew Theodore Martens, Assistant United States Attorney, Charlotte, North Carolina, for Appellee.
Before WILLIAMS, Chief Judge, and TRAXLER and KING, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
Phillip Mark Vaughan 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 Vaughan 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.