Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Taiwan Davidson CAMERON, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2009-06-23
Citations: 327 F. App'x 399
Docket Number: No. 08-7280
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, v. Taiwan Davidson CAMERON, Defendant—Appellant.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 327
Pages: 399–399

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, v. Taiwan Davidson CAMERON, Defendant—Appellant.
No. 08-7280.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: June 1, 2009.
Decided: June 23, 2009.
Taiwan Davidson Cameron, Appellant Pro Se. John C. Lynch, Office of the United States Attorney, Andrew McCormack, Special Assistant United States Attorney, Alexandria, Virginia, Paul Torzilli, United States Department of Justice, Washington, D.C., for Appellee.
Before MOTZ 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Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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:
Taiwan Davidson Cameron seeks to appeal the district court's order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2006) motion. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate 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) (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 that Cameron 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.