Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Ronald Eric MARSHALL, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2007-04-05
Citations: 223 F. App'x 231
Docket Number: No. 06-8053
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Ronald Eric MARSHALL, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 223
Pages: 231–232

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Ronald Eric MARSHALL, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 06-8053.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: March 29, 2007.
Decided: April 5, 2007.
Ronald Eric Marshall, Appellant Pro Se. Lynne Ann Battaglia, Martin Joseph Clarke, Office of the United States Attorney, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellee.
Before MOTZ, TRAKLER, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
Ronald Eric Marshall seeks to appeal the district court's order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000) motion. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 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 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 Marshall has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny Marshall's motion for 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.