Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Joe HEMINGWAY, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2006-07-12
Citations: 189 F. App'x 246
Docket Number: No. 05-7363
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff —Appellee, v. Joe HEMINGWAY, Defendant—Appellant.
Judges: Before WILKINSON, MOTZ, and KING, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 189
Pages: 246–247

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff —Appellee, v. Joe HEMINGWAY, Defendant—Appellant.
No. 05-7363.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: June 16, 2006.
Decided: July 12, 2006.
Joe Hemingway, Appellant Pro Se. Arthur Bradley Parham, Office of the United States Attorney, Florence, South Carolina, for Appellee.
Before WILKINSON, MOTZ, 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Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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:
Joe Hemingway 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. § 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 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 Hemingway 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.