Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Ronald NELSON, a/k/a Ronnie, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2005-05-19
Citations: 131 F. App'x 937
Docket Number: No. 04-7588
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, v. Ronald NELSON, a/k/a Ronnie, Defendant—Appellant.
Judges: Before NIEMEYER and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 131
Pages: 937–938

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, v. Ronald NELSON, a/k/a Ronnie, Defendant—Appellant.
No. 04-7588.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: Feb. 28, 2005.
Decided: May 19, 2005.
Ronald Nelson, Appellant pro se.
Jane J. Jackson, Assistant United States Attorney, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee.
Before NIEMEYER and WILLIAMS, 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Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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:
Ronald Nelson, a federal prisoner, seeks to appeal the district court's order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000) motion. An appeal may not be taken from the final order in a § 2255 proceeding 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 for claims addressed by a district court absent "a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right." 28 U.S.C. § 2258(c)(2) (2000). A prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find both that the district court's assessment of his constitutional claims is debatable or wrong 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 (4th Cir.2001). We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Nelson 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
The motion was styled, "Petition for Relief Under 28 U.S.C. § 1651 and Rule 60(b)."