Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Ronald Samuel JACKSON, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2009-05-21
Citations: 325 F. App'x 220
Docket Number: No. 08-6724
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, v. Ronald Samuel JACKSON, Defendant—Appellant.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 325
Pages: 220–221

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, v. Ronald Samuel JACKSON, Defendant—Appellant.
No. 08-6724.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: May 6, 2009.
Decided: May 21, 2009.
Ronald Samuel Jackson, Appellant Pro Se. Jean Barrett Hudson, Assistant United States Attorney, Bruce A. Pagel, Office of the United States Attorney, Charlottes-ville, Virginia, for Appellee.
Before GREGORY and SHEDD, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.
Dismissed by unpubhshed PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpubhshed opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
Ronald Samuel Jackson seeks to appeal the district court's order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West Supp.2008) motion. The order is not appealable un less a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2006). A certificate of appeal-ability will not issue absent "a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right." 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2006). 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 Jackson has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny Jackson's motion for appointment of counsel, 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.