Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Germaine Vernon WALLACE, a/k/a Kid, a/k/a Rescue Ranger, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2009-10-05
Citations: 332 F. App'x 828
Docket Number: No. 09-6205
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Germaine Vernon WALLACE, a/k/a Kid, a/k/a Rescue Ranger, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before NIEMEYER, MICHAEL, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 332
Pages: 828–829

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Germaine Vernon WALLACE, a/k/a Kid, a/k/a Rescue Ranger, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 09-6205.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: Sept. 29, 2009.
Decided: Oct. 5, 2009.
Germaine Vernon Wallace, Appellant Pro Se. Clinton Jacob Fuchs, Alen F. Loucks, Assistant United States Attorneys, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellee.
Before NIEMEYER, MICHAEL, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Germaine Vernon Wallace 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 certificate 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 disposi-tive procedural ruling by the district court is likewise debatable. Miller-El v. Cock-rell, 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 Wallace 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.