Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Hilton THOMAS, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2005-10-20
Citations: 146 F. App'x 641
Docket Number: No. 05-6195
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, v. Hilton THOMAS, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before WIDENER, MICHAEL, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 146
Pages: 641–641

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, v. Hilton THOMAS, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 05-6195.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted Oct. 18, 2005.
Decided Oct. 20, 2005.
Hilton Thomas, Appellant Pro Se. Jamie M. Bennett, Assistant United States Attorney, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellee.
Before WIDENER, MICHAEL, and DUNCAN, 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Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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:
Hilton Thomas seeks to appeal the district court's orders denying relief on his motion filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000) and motion to reconsider. 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 the district court's assessment of his constitutional claims is 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 (4th Cir.2001). We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Thomas 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