Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. James Nathaniel DILLARD, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2008-02-27
Citations: 267 F. App'x 251
Docket Number: No. 07-7773
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, v. James Nathaniel DILLARD, Defendant—Appellant.
Judges: Before MOTZ and GREGORY, Circuit Judges, and WILKINS, Senior Circuit Judge.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 267
Pages: 251–252

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, v. James Nathaniel DILLARD, Defendant—Appellant.
No. 07-7773.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: Feb. 21, 2008.
Decided: Feb. 27, 2008.
James Nathaniel Dillard, Appellant Pro Se. Angela Hewlett Miller, Office of the United States Attorney, Greensboro, North Carolina, for Appellee.
Before MOTZ and GREGORY, Circuit Judges, and WILKINS, Senior Circuit Judge.
Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
James Nathaniel Dillard 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 Dillard 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.