Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Luis Fernando VEGA, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2009-03-17
Citations: 317 F. App'x 365
Docket Number: No. 08-8400
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Luis Fernando VEGA, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before MOTZ and SHEDD, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 317
Pages: 365–366

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Luis Fernando VEGA, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 08-8400.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: March 12, 2009.
Decided: March 17, 2009.
Luis Fernando Vega, Appellant Pro Se. Ronald Andrew Bassford, Assistant United States Attorney, Roanoke, Virginia, for Appellee.
Before MOTZ and SHEDD, 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Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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:
Luis Fernando Vega 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 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 sat isfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that any 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 and conclude that Vega has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and the appeal. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
DISMISSED.