Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Steven E. HESTER, a/k/a Melvin Ball, a/k/a Melvin Ball, Jr., a/k/a Byron Melvin Falls, a/k/a Owen Price, a/k/a Bob, a/k/a U.S.A., Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2007-10-16
Citations: 251 F. App'x 162
Docket Number: No. 07-6444
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, v. Steven E. HESTER, a/k/a Melvin Ball, a/k/a Melvin Ball, Jr., a/k/a Byron Melvin Falls, a/k/a Owen Price, a/k/a Bob, a/k/a U.S.A., Defendant—Appellant.
Judges: Before MICHAEL and SHEDD, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 251
Pages: 162–163

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, v. Steven E. HESTER, a/k/a Melvin Ball, a/k/a Melvin Ball, Jr., a/k/a Byron Melvin Falls, a/k/a Owen Price, a/k/a Bob, a/k/a U.S.A., Defendant—Appellant.
No. 07-6444.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: Oct. 11, 2007.
Decided: Oct. 16, 2007.
Steven E. Hester, Appellant Pro Se. Rod J. Rosenstein, United States Attorney, Bonnie S. Greenberg, Office of the United States Attorney, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellee.
Before MICHAEL and SHEDD, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.
Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
Steven E. Hester 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 appeal-ability. See 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. See 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 Hester has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability; deny Hester's motions for appointment of counsel, to place the case in abeyance, and for general relief; 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.