Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Nick HALTEH, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2009-01-20
Citations: 307 F. App'x 750
Docket Number: No. 08-7708
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Nick HALTEH, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before WILLIAMS, Chief Judge, and TRAXLER and KING, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 307
Pages: 750–751

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Nick HALTEH, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 08-7708.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: Jan. 13, 2009.
Decided: Jan. 20, 2009.
Nick Halteh, Appellant Pro Se. Jonathan Leo Fahey, Office of the United States Attorney, Alexandria, Virginia, for Appellee.
Before WILLIAMS, Chief Judge, and TRAXLER and KING, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
Nick Halteh 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 Halteh 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.