Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Steven NADROSKI, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2008-10-17
Citations: 297 F. App'x 209
Docket Number: No. 08-6734
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, v. Steven NADROSKI, Defendant—Appellant.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 297
Pages: 209–210

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, v. Steven NADROSKI, Defendant—Appellant.
No. 08-6734.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: Oct. 14, 2008.
Decided: Oct. 17, 2008.
Steven Nadroski, Appellant Pro Se. Howard Jacob Zlotnick, Assistant United States Attorney, Newport News, Virginia, for Appellee.
Before KING, GREGORY, and AGEE, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
Steven Nadroski 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 appeal-ability. 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 that Nadroski has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny Nadroski's motion for a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. We further deny Nadroski's motion for appointment of counsel.
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.