Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Rodney Maurice SAUNDERS, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2010-06-04
Citations: 381 F. App'x 272
Docket Number: No. 09-6175
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, v. Rodney Maurice SAUNDERS, Defendant—Appellant.
Judges: Before DUNCAN and DAVIS, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 381
Pages: 272–273

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, v. Rodney Maurice SAUNDERS, Defendant—Appellant.
No. 09-6175.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: May 3, 2010.
Decided: June 4, 2010.
Rodney Maurice Saunders, Appellant Pro Se. Paul M. Tiao, Assistant United States Attorney, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellee.
Before DUNCAN and DAVIS, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.

Opinion:
Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Rodney Maurice Saunders 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 certifícate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2006). A certifícate of ap-pealability will not issue, absent "a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right." 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2). 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, 484-85, 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 Saunders 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.