Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Ralph COLLINS, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2008-07-02
Citations: 283 F. App'x 95
Docket Number: No. 08-6427
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, v. Ralph COLLINS, Defendant—Appellant.
Judges: Before KING and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges, and WILKINS, Senior Circuit Judge.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 283
Pages: 95–95

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, v. Ralph COLLINS, Defendant—Appellant.
No. 08-6427.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: June 26, 2008.
Decided: July 2, 2008.
Ralph Collins, Appellant Pro Se. Michael Calvin Moore, Assistant United States Attorney, Norfolk, Virginia, for Appellee.
Before KING and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges, and WILKINS, Senior Circuit Judge.
Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
Ralph Collins 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 Collins has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny Collins' 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.