Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Santos Efrain Guevara GIRON, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2008-08-08
Citations: 285 F. App'x 994
Docket Number: No. 08-6285
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Santos Efrain Guevara GIRON, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before NIEMEYER, TRAXLER, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 285
Pages: 994–995

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Santos Efrain Guevara GIRON, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 08-6285.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: July 31, 2008.
Decided: Aug. 8, 2008.
Jeffrey Daniel Zimmerman, Alexandria, Virginia, for Appellant. David Benjamin Joyce, Office of the United States Attorney, Alexandria, Virginia, for Appellee.
Before NIEMEYER, TRAXLER, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
Santos Efrain Guevara Giron 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 Giron 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.