Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Ray WASHINGTON, Jr., a/k/a Rocko, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2005-12-13
Citations: 158 F. App'x 411
Docket Number: No. 05-6966
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, v. Ray WASHINGTON, Jr., a/k/a Rocko, Defendant—Appellant.
Judges: Before WILKINSON, NIEMEYER, and KING, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 158
Pages: 411–411

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, v. Ray WASHINGTON, Jr., a/k/a Rocko, Defendant—Appellant.
No. 05-6966.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: Nov. 23, 2005.
Decided: Dec. 13, 2005.
Ray Washington, Jr., Appellant Pro Se. Fernando Groene, Office of the United States Attorney, Newport News, Virginia, for Appellee.
Before WILKINSON, NIEMEYER, and KING, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
Ray Washington, Jr., a federal prisoner, seeks to appeal the district court's order dismissing his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000) motion. An appeal may not be taken from the final order in a § 2255 proceeding 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 for claims addressed by a district court 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 both that the district court's assessment of his constitutional claims is debatable or wrong and that any dispositive procedural rulings by the district court are also debatable or wrong. See Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 336, 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 (4th Cir.2001). We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Washington 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