Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Gary Eugene BUNCHE, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2009-07-21
Citations: 328 F. App'x 891
Docket Number: No. 08-8294
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, v. Gary Eugene BUNCHE, Defendant—Appellant.
Judges: Before MOTZ, SHEDD, and AGEE, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 328
Pages: 891–892

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, v. Gary Eugene BUNCHE, Defendant—Appellant.
No. 08-8294.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: July 7, 2009.
Decided: July 21, 2009.
Gary Eugene Bunche, Appellant Pro Se. Eric David Goulian, Office of the United States Attorney, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee.
Before MOTZ, SHEDD, and AGEE, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Gary Eugene Bunche 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 appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a cei'tificate 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 dis-positive 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 Bunche 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.