Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Raymon Anthony HIGGS, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2007-10-09
Citations: 249 F. App'x 977
Docket Number: No. 07-6398
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, v. Raymon Anthony HIGGS, Defendant—Appellant.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 249
Pages: 977–977

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, v. Raymon Anthony HIGGS, Defendant—Appellant.
No. 07-6398.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: Sept. 24, 2007.
Decided: Oct. 9, 2007.
Raymon Anthony Higgs, Appellant Pro Se. Leesa Washington, Office of the United States Attorney, Greenville, South Carolina, for Appellee.
Before NIEMEYER, TRAXLER, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
Raymon Anthony Higgs seeks to appeal the district court's orders denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000) motion. The orders are not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of ap-pealability. 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. 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 Higgs 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.