Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Darren L. KEYS, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2008-07-25
Citations: 285 F. App'x 67
Docket Number: No. 08-6461
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Darren L. KEYS, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before WILKINSON, MOTZ, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 285
Pages: 67–67

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Darren L. KEYS, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 08-6461.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: July 22, 2008.
Decided: July 25, 2008.
Darren L. Keys, Appellant Pro Se. Harvey Ellis Eisenberg, Assistant United States Attorney, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellee.
Before WILKINSON, MOTZ, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
Darren L. Keys seeks to appeal the district court's marginal order denying relief on his "motion" filed in his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000) action. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate 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, 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 Keys 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.
The motion was titled "Emergency Motion for Correction of Court's Records to Clarify Case Number Given to First and Only § 2255 Under Fed.R.Civ.P. Rule 60(a) and Fed. R. Cr. P. 36 and Privacy Act Under 5 USC § 552a and 60(b)." (R. 78).