Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Dwayne Curtis DELESTON, Defendant-Appellant; United States of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Dwayne Curtis Deleston, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2009-10-08
Citations: 333 F. App'x 716
Docket Number: Nos. 09-6957, 09-6958
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, v. Dwayne Curtis DELESTON, Defendant—Appellant, United States of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, v. Dwayne Curtis Deleston, Defendant—Appellant.
Judges: Before NIEMEYER, MICHAEL, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 333
Pages: 716–717

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, v. Dwayne Curtis DELESTON, Defendant—Appellant, United States of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, v. Dwayne Curtis Deleston, Defendant—Appellant.
Nos. 09-6957, 09-6958.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: Sept. 29, 2009.
Decided: Oct. 8, 2009.
Dwayne Curtis Deleston, Appellant Pro Se. Peter Thomas Phillips, Assistant United States Attorney, Charleston, South Carolina, 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Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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:
Dwayne Curtis Deleston seeks to appeal the district court's orders denying relief on his 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West Supp.2009) motions. These orders are not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certifícate 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 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 Deleston has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealabihty and dismiss the appeals. 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.