Case Name: Jonathan GRIFFIN, Petitioner-Appellant, v. E. WRIGHT, Warden, Respondent-Appellee
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2008-09-15
Citations: 293 F. App'x 225
Docket Number: No. 08-6728
Parties: Jonathan GRIFFIN, Petitioner—Appellant, v. E. WRIGHT, Warden, Respondent—Appellee.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 293
Pages: 225–226

Head Matter:
Jonathan GRIFFIN, Petitioner—Appellant, v. E. WRIGHT, Warden, Respondent—Appellee.
No. 08-6728.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: Sept. 3, 2008.
Decided: Sept. 15, 2008.
Jonathan Griffin, Appellant Pro Se. Donald Eldridge Jeffrey, III, Assistant Attorney General, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee.
Before WILKINSON and NIEMEYER, 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Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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:
Jonathan Griffin 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. § 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 Griffin has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny Griffin's motion for 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.