Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. Roddie Phillip DUMAS, Sr., Defendant - Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2009-04-23
Citations: 323 F. App'x 291
Docket Number: No. 08-7929
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff — Appellee, v. Roddie Phillip DUMAS, Sr., Defendant — Appellant.
Judges: Before WILKINSON, NIEMEYER, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 323
Pages: 291–291

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff — Appellee, v. Roddie Phillip DUMAS, Sr., Defendant — Appellant.
No. 08-7929.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: April 16, 2009.
Decided: April 23, 2009.
Roddie Phillip Dumas, Sr., Appellant Pro Se. Amy Elizabeth Ray, Assistant United States Attorney, Asheville, North Carolina; Gretchen C.F. Shappert, United States Department of Justice, Washington, D.C., for Appellee.
Before WILKINSON, NIEMEYER, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Roddie Phillip Dumas, Sr., 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 appeal-able 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 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 Dumas has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. We deny Dumas' motion to place the case in abeyance as moot. 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.