Case Name: Tyrone RAGLAND, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Eddie PEARSON, Warden, Sussex II, Respondent-Appellee
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2005-12-16
Citations: 159 F. App'x 488
Docket Number: No. 05-6664
Parties: Tyrone RAGLAND, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Eddie PEARSON, Warden, Sussex II, Respondent-Appellee.
Judges: Before LUTTIG, MICHAEL, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 159
Pages: 488–489

Head Matter:
Tyrone RAGLAND, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Eddie PEARSON, Warden, Sussex II, Respondent-Appellee.
No. 05-6664.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: Nov. 30, 2005.
Decided: Dec. 16, 2005.
Tyrone Ragland, Appellant Pro Se.
Before LUTTIG, MICHAEL, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
Tyrone Ragland seeks to appeal the district court's order denying relief on his motion filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000). 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 his constitutional claims are debatable and that any dispositive procedural rulings by the district court are also debatable or wrong. 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 Rag-land 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