Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Kingdawud Mujahid BURGESS, a/k/a David Clifton Burgess, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2009-09-22
Citations: 332 F. App'x 884
Docket Number: No. 09-6109
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Kingdawud Mujahid BURGESS, a/k/a David Clifton Burgess, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before MOTZ and SHEDD, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 332
Pages: 884–884

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Kingdawud Mujahid BURGESS, a/k/a David Clifton Burgess, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 09-6109.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: Sept. 10, 2009.
Decided: Sept. 22, 2009.
Kingdawud Mujahid Burgess, Appellant Pro Se. Dennis Michael Fitzpatrick, Office of the United States Attorney, Alexandria, Virginia, for Appellee.
Before MOTZ and SHEDD, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.

Opinion:
Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Kingdawud Mujahid Burgess seeks to appeal the district court's order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West Supp.2009) motion. The order is not ap-pealable 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 disposi-tive procedural ruling by the district court is likewise debatable. Miller-El v. Cock-rell, 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 Burgess 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.