Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Dwayne DELESTON, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2006-03-01
Citations: 170 F. App'x 268
Docket Number: No. 05-7025
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, v. Dwayne DELESTON, Defendant—Appellant.
Judges: Before WIDENER, NIEMEYER, and KING, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 170
Pages: 268–268

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, v. Dwayne DELESTON, Defendant—Appellant.
No. 05-7025.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted Feb. 23, 2006.
Decided March 1, 2006.
Dwayne Deleston, Appellant Pro Se. Kevin Frank McDonald, Office of the United States Attorney, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellee.
Before WIDENER, NIEMEYER, and KING, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
Dwayne Deleston seeks to appeal the district court's orders denying relief on his motions filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000). The orders are not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2000). A certificate of appeal-ability 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 the district court's assessment of his constitutional claims is debatable and that any dispositive procedural rulings by the district court are also debatable or wrong. See Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 336, 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 (4th Cir.2001). We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Deleston has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny Deleston's 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