Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. William Steven HURLEY, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2009-03-23
Citations: 319 F. App'x 214
Docket Number: No. 08-8309
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. William Steven HURLEY, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before TRAXLER, KING, and AGEE, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 319
Pages: 214–214

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. William Steven HURLEY, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 08-8309.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: March 17, 2009.
Decided: March 23, 2009.
William Steven Hurley, Appellant Pro Se. Randall Stuart Galyon, Office of the United States Attorney, Angela Hewlett Miller, Assistant United States Attorney, Greensboro, North Carolina, for Appellee.
Before TRAXLER, KING, and AGEE, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
William Steven Hurley seeks to appeal the district court's order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000) motion. The order is not appeal-able 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 any assessment of the constitutional claims by the district court is debatable or wrong and that any dis-positive 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 Hurley has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny Hurley'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.