Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Tommy HENDERSON, a/k/a Thomas A. Henderson, a/k/a Tommie Henderson, a/k/a Tom Lamont Henderson, a/k/a Tommy Lemont Henderson, a/k/a Tommy Lamont Henderson, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2006-03-01
Citations: 170 F. App'x 265
Docket Number: No. 05-6850
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, v. Tommy HENDERSON, a/k/a Thomas A. Henderson, a/k/a Tommie Henderson, a/k/a Tom Lamont Henderson, a/k/a Tommy Lemont Henderson, a/k/a Tommy Lamont Henderson, Defendant—Appellant.
Judges: Before WIDENER, NIEMEYER, and KING, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 170
Pages: 265–266

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, v. Tommy HENDERSON, a/k/a Thomas A. Henderson, a/k/a Tommie Henderson, a/k/a Tom Lamont Henderson, a/k/a Tommy Lemont Henderson, a/k/a Tommy Lamont Henderson, Defendant—Appellant.
No. 05-6850.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted Feb. 23, 2006.
Decided March 1, 2006.
Tommy Henderson, Appellant Pro Se. Lee Ellis Berlinsky, Office of the United States Attorney, Charleston, South Carolina, for Appellee.
Before WIDENER, NIEMEYER, and KING, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
Tommy Henderson seeks to appeal the district court's order denying relief on his motion filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000). 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 the district court's assessment of his constitutional claims is debatable and that any dispositive procedural rulings by the district court are also debatable or wrong. See 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 Henderson 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