Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Robert Lee WALSH, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2007-06-19
Citations: 229 F. App'x 272
Docket Number: No. 06-7922
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, v. Robert Lee WALSH, Defendant—Appellant.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 229
Pages: 272–273

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, v. Robert Lee WALSH, Defendant—Appellant.
No. 06-7922.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: June 4, 2007.
Decided: June 19, 2007.
Robert Lee Walsh, Appellant Pro Se. Brent Alan Gray, Office of the United States Attorney, Charleston, South Carolina, for Appellee.
Before WILLIAMS, TRAXLER, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
Robert Lee Walsh seeks to appeal the district court's order granting the Government's motion for summary judgment on his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000) motion and denying the motion. The order denying Walsh's § 2255 motion 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 sub stantial 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 dis-positive 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 Walsh 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.