Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Benjamin Franklin SCOTT, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2009-05-27
Citations: 325 F. App'x 246
Docket Number: No. 09-6320
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, v. Benjamin Franklin SCOTT, Defendant—Appellant.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 325
Pages: 246–247

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, v. Benjamin Franklin SCOTT, Defendant—Appellant.
No. 09-6320.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: May 6, 2009.
Decided: May 27, 2009.
Benjamin Franklin Scott, Appellant Pro Se. Robert Hugh McWilliams, Jr., Assistant United States Attorney, Wheeling, West Virginia, for Appellee.
Before MICHAEL, MOTZ, and KING, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpubhshed PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpubhshed opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
Benjamin Franklin Scott 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 ap-pealability 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 Scott has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the ap peal. 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.