Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Thomas AUGUSTIN, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2008-04-29
Citations: 275 F. App'x 247
Docket Number: No. 07-7763
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, v. Thomas AUGUSTIN, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 275
Pages: 247–248

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, v. Thomas AUGUSTIN, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 07-7763.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: April 24, 2008.
Decided: April 29, 2008.
Thomas Augustin, Appellant Pro Se. Amy Elizabeth Ray, Office of the United States Attorney, Asheville, North Carolina, for Appellee.
Before KING and SHEDD, Circuit Judges, and WILKINS, Senior Circuit Judge.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
Thomas Augustin 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 appeal-ability. 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 Augustin 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.