Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Dadrian Nekeith ROMAN, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2006-10-16
Citations: 203 F. App'x 432
Docket Number: No. 06-7101
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Dadrian Nekeith ROMAN, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before TRAXLER and KING, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 203
Pages: 432–432

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Dadrian Nekeith ROMAN, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 06-7101.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: Sept. 27, 2006.
Decided: Oct. 16, 2006.
Dadrian Nekeith Roman, Appellant Pro Se. Gretchen C.F. Shappert, United States Attorney, Charlotte, North Carolina, for Appellee.
Before TRAXLER and KING, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.
Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).

Opinion:
PER CURIAM.
Dadrian Nekeith Roman 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 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 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 Roman 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.