Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Scott Lewis RENDELMAN, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2009-01-22
Citations: 308 F. App'x 685
Docket Number: No. 08-7646
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Scott Lewis RENDELMAN, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 308
Pages: 685–685

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Scott Lewis RENDELMAN, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 08-7646.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: Jan. 15, 2009.
Decided: Jan. 22, 2009.
Scott Lewis Rendelman, Appellant Pro Se. Stacy Dawson Belf, James Marton Trusty, Assistant United States Attorneys, Greenbelt, Maryland, for Appellee.
Before MOTZ and SHEDD, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.
Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
Scott Lewis Rendelman seeks to appeal the district court's order denying his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000) motion as premature. 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 Rendelman 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.