Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Keith BILLINGSLEY, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2009-12-29
Citations: 358 F. App'x 441
Docket Number: No. 09-7176
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Keith BILLINGSLEY, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before WILKINSON, NIEMEYER, and AGEE, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 358
Pages: 441–442

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Keith BILLINGSLEY, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 09-7176.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: Dec. 17, 2009.
Decided: Dec. 29, 2009.
Keith Billingsley, Appellant Pro Se. Melissa Siskind, Office of the United States Attorney, Alexandria, Virginia, for Appellee.
Before WILKINSON, NIEMEYER, and AGEE, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Keith Billingsley 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 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 Billingsley has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny Billingsley'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.