Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Napolean Justice MENSAH, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2008-07-17
Citations: 284 F. App'x 99
Docket Number: No. 07-7602
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, v. Napolean Justice MENSAH, Defendant—Appellant.
Judges: Before NIEMEYER, KING, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 284
Pages: 99–100

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, v. Napolean Justice MENSAH, Defendant—Appellant.
No. 07-7602.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: March 17, 2008.
Decided: July 17, 2008.
Napolean Justice Mensah, Appellant Pro Se. Beth Nicole Gibson, Office of the United States Attorney, Alexandria, Virginia, for Appellee.
Before NIEMEYER, KING, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
Napolean Justice Mensah 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 certifícate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2258(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, 33638, 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 Mensah 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.