Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Robert Edward SILLS, a/k/a Bobby, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2008-11-13
Citations: 299 F. App'x 303
Docket Number: No. 08-7230
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, v. Robert Edward SILLS, a/k/a Bobby, Defendant—Appellant.
Judges: Before MICHAEL and SHEDD, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 299
Pages: 303–303

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, v. Robert Edward SILLS, a/k/a Bobby, Defendant—Appellant.
No. 08-7230.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: Oct. 20, 2008.
Decided: Nov. 13, 2008.
Robert Edward Sills, Appellant Pro Se. Laura Marie Everhart, Assistant United States Attorney, Norfolk, Virginia, for Appellee.
Before MICHAEL 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Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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:
Robert Edward Sills seeks to appeal the district court's order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000) motion. The order is not appeal-able 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 Sills has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. We also deny Sills' motion to consolidate his case with another of his appeals and to place the case in abeyance and stay the mandate pending information requested under the Freedom of Information Act. 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.