Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Calvin E. BUCHANAN, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2008-06-24
Citations: 282 F. App'x 272
Docket Number: No. 08-6293
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, v. Calvin E. BUCHANAN, Defendant—Appellant.
Judges: Before WILKINSON, NIEMEYER, and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 282
Pages: 272–273

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, v. Calvin E. BUCHANAN, Defendant—Appellant.
No. 08-6293.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: June 19, 2008.
Decided: June 24, 2008.
Calvin Eugene Buchanan, Appellant Pro Se. John L. Brownlee, United States Attorney, Roanoke, Virginia, for Appellee.
Before WILKINSON, NIEMEYER, and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
Calvin Eugene Buchanan 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 rea sonable 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 Buchanan has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny Buchanan's motion for 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.