Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Tony HOEY, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2006-12-01
Citations: 207 F. App'x 357
Docket Number: No. 06-7437
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Tony HOEY, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before TRAXLER and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 207
Pages: 357–358

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Tony HOEY, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 06-7437.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: Nov. 21, 2006.
Decided: Dec. 1, 2006.
Tony Hoey, Appellant Pro Se. Thomas Richard Ascik, Office of The United States Attorney, Asheville, North Carolina, for Appellee.
Before TRAXLER and DUNCAN, 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Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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:
Tony Hoey seeks to appeal the district court's orders denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000) motion. The orders are 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 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 Hoey 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.