Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Lawrence Leo HAWKINS, Jr., Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2010-06-03
Citations: 381 F. App'x 246
Docket Number: No. 08-7041
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, v. Lawrence Leo HAWKINS, Jr., Defendant—Appellant.
Judges: Before TRAXLER, Chief Judge, and MOTZ and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 381
Pages: 246–246

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, v. Lawrence Leo HAWKINS, Jr., Defendant—Appellant.
No. 08-7041.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: March 30, 2010.
Decided: June 3, 2010.
Lawrence Leo Hawkins, Jr., Appellant Pro Se. William David Muhr, Assistant United States Attorney, Norfolk, Virginia, for Appellee.
Before TRAXLER, Chief Judge, and MOTZ and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Lawrence Leo Hawkins, Jr., seeks to appeal the district court's order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 West Supp.2009) motion. The order is not ap-pealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certifícate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2006). 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) (2006). 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 disposi-tive 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 Hawkins has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. We also deny Hawkins' motions for transcript and documents at Government expense, for copies of documents needed to complete appeal, and for injunc-tive relief pending 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.