Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Joseph Rodney BROOKS, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2009-02-10
Citations: 310 F. App'x 599
Docket Number: No. 08-7290
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Joseph Rodney BROOKS, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before MICHAEL and MOTZ, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 310
Pages: 599–599

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Joseph Rodney BROOKS, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 08-7290.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: Feb. 2, 2009.
Decided: Feb. 10, 2009.
Joseph- Rodney Brooks, Appellant Pro Se. Ray Burton Fitzgerald, Jr., Office of the United States Attorney, Ronald Mitchell Huber, Assistant United States Attorney, Charlottesville, Virginia, for Appellee.
Before MICHAEL and MOTZ, 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Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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:
Joseph Rodney Brooks 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 appeal-ability 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 demon-strafing 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 Brooks 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