Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Emory Taylor CHILES, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2009-12-29
Citations: 358 F. App'x 434
Docket Number: No. 09-7440
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Emory Taylor CHILES, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before WILKINSON, NIEMEYER, and AGEE, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 358
Pages: 434–435

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Emory Taylor CHILES, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 09-7440.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: Dec. 17, 2009.
Decided: Dec. 29, 2009.
Emory Taylor Chiles, Appellant Pro Se. Randolph John Bernard, Assistant United States Attorney, Wheeling, West Virginia, for Appellee.
Before WILKINSON, NIEMEYER, and AGEE, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Emory Taylor Chiles seeks to appeal the district court's order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and denying relief on his 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West Supp.2009) motion. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2006). 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) (2006). 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 Chiles 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.