Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Arthur Lee HAIRSTON, Sr., Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2005-12-20
Citations: 158 F. App'x 451
Docket Number: No. 05-6690
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff — Appellee, v. Arthur Lee HAIRSTON, Sr., Defendant — Appellant.
Judges: Before MICHAEL and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 158
Pages: 451–452

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff — Appellee, v. Arthur Lee HAIRSTON, Sr., Defendant — Appellant.
No. 05-6690.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted Dec. 17, 2005.
Decided Dec. 20, 2005.
Arthur Lee Hairston, Sr., Appellant Pro Se. David Earl Godwin, Assistant United States Attorney, Clarksburg, West Virginia; Thomas Oliver Mucklow, Assistant United States Attorney, Martinsburg, West Virginia, for Appellee.
Before MICHAEL and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.
Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
Arthur Lee Hairston, Sr., seeks to appeal the district court's order denying his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000) motion. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appeal-ability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2000). 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) (2000). A prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find both that the district court's assessment of his constitutional claims is debatable or wrong 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 Hairston has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. We deny Hairston's motion for copies of briefs filed in another case. 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.