Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Patrick Jean AUBIN, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2006-01-18
Citations: 161 F. App'x 331
Docket Number: No. 05-6427
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, v. Patrick Jean AUBIN, Defendant—Appellant.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 161
Pages: 331–332

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, v. Patrick Jean AUBIN, Defendant—Appellant.
No. 05-6427.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted Dec. 21, 2005.
Decided Jan. 18, 2006.
Patrick Jean Aubin, Appellant Pro Se. Steven Hale Levin, Office of the United States Attorney, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellee.
Before WILKINSON, NIEMEYER, and SHEDD, 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Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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:
Patrick Jean Aubin seeks to appeal the district court's order adopting 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 his constitutional claims are debatable and that any dispositive procedural rulings by the district court are also debatable or wrong. See Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 336-38, 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 Aubin has not made the requisite showing.
Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. We also deny Aubin's motion for appointment of counsel. 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