Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Robert Wayne GRUBB, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2005-05-06
Citations: 128 F. App'x 337
Docket Number: No. 05-6125
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Robert Wayne GRUBB, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 128
Pages: 337–338

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Robert Wayne GRUBB, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 05-6125.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: April 28, 2005.
Decided: May 6, 2005.
Douglas Edward Crockett, Williams-burg, Virginia, for Appellant.
Donald Ray Wolthuis, Office of the United States Attorney, Roanoke, Virginia, for Appellee.
Before WILLIAMS, KING, 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Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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:
Robert W. Grubb seeks to appeal the district court's orders denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000) motion and a subsequent motion for a certificate of appeala-bility. The orders are not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2000). A certificate of ap-pealability 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, 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 Grubb 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 be fore the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
DISMISSED