Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Michael Joseph GRASSO, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2006-05-08
Citations: 179 F. App'x 182
Docket Number: No. 06-6233
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, v. Keith Derrick DUPONT, Defendant—Appellant.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 179
Pages: 182–183

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, v. Keith Derrick DUPONT, Defendant—Appellant.
No. 06-6233.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted April 27, 2006.
Decided May 8, 2006.
Keith Derrick Dupont, Appellant Pro Se. Mark Alex Grider, Office of the United States Attorney, Alexandria, Virginia, for Appellee.
Before NIEMEYER and MOTZ, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.
Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
Keith Derrick Dupont, a federal prisoner, 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 are debatable and that any dispositive procedural rulings by the district court is also debatable or wrong. See Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 336, 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 (4th Cir.2001). We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Dupont 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.