Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Marco Antonio VELEZ, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2009-03-03
Citations: 314 F. App'x 604
Docket Number: No. 08-8043
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Marco Antonio VELEZ, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before WILKINSON, KING, and AGEE, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 314
Pages: 604–604

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Marco Antonio VELEZ, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 08-8043.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted Feb. 19, 2009.
Decided March 3, 2009.
Marco Antonio Velez, Appellant Pro Se. Alfred William Walker Bethea, Jr., Assistant United States Attorney, Florence, South Carolina, for Appellee.
Before WILKINSON, KING, and AGEE, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Marco Antonio Velez 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 certifícate 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 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 Velez 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