Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Roy Keith LUCAS, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2010-04-28
Citations: 376 F. App'x 305
Docket Number: No. 10-6270
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Roy Keith LUCAS, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before TRAXLER, Chief Judge, and KING and AGEE, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 376
Pages: 305–306

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Roy Keith LUCAS, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 10-6270.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: April 22, 2010.
Decided: April 28, 2010.
Joshua Snow Kendrick, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellant. Stanley Duane Ragsdale, Assistant United States Attorney, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appel-lee.
Before TRAXLER, Chief Judge, and KING and AGEE, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Roy Keith Lucas 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 appealable 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 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 Lucas 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.