Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Emmanuel Olaminde OSHO, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2007-09-11
Citations: 239 F. App'x 788
Docket Number: No. 07-6965
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Emmanuel Olaminde OSHO, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before MICHAEL, KING, and SHEDD, Senior Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 239
Pages: 788–788

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Emmanuel Olaminde OSHO, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 07-6965.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: Aug. 30, 2007.
Decided: Sept. 11, 2007.
Emmanuel Olaminde Osho, Appellant Pro Se. Andrew Everett Lelling, Office of the United States Attorney, Alexandria, Virginia, for Appellee.
Before MICHAEL, KING, and SHEDD, Senior Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
Emmanuel Olaminde Osho 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 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 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 record and conclude that Osho 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.