Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Tiron WHEELER, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2006-06-30
Citations: 187 F. App'x 310
Docket Number: No. 06-6356
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, v. Tiron WHEELER, Defendant—Appellant.
Judges: Before NIEMEYER, MICHAEL, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 187
Pages: 310–311

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, v. Tiron WHEELER, Defendant—Appellant.
No. 06-6356.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted June 22, 2006.
Decided June 30, 2006.
Tirón Wheeler, Appellant Pro Se. Andrew George Warrens Norman, Assistant United States Attorney, Stephen Matthew Schenning, Martin Joseph Clarke, Jacabed Rodriguez Coss, Office of the United States Attorney, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellee.
Before NIEMEYER, MICHAEL, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
Tirón Wheeler 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 appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2000). A certifi cate of appealability will not issue 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 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 Wheeler 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