Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Khincey Nevell BARNES, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2008-03-31
Citations: 272 F. App'x 300
Docket Number: No. 08-6063
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Khincey Nevell BARNES, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 272
Pages: 300–301

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Khincey Nevell BARNES, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 08-6063.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: March 25, 2008.
Decided: March 31, 2008.
Khincey Nevell Barnes, Appellant Pro Se. Morris Rudolph Parker, Jr., Assistant United States Attorney, Alexandria, Virginia, for Appellee.
Before MOTZ, KING,.and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Khincey Nevell Barnes 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 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, 33638, 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 Barnes 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 be fore the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
DISMISSED.