Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Howard Charles HUDSON, a/k/a Star, a/k/a Boss, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2009-06-08
Citations: 332 F. App'x 45
Docket Number: No. 09-6104
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Howard Charles HUDSON, a/k/a Star, a/k/a Boss, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before WILKINSON, KING, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 332
Pages: 45–46

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Howard Charles HUDSON, a/k/a Star, a/k/a Boss, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 09-6104.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: May 28, 2009.
Decided: June 8, 2009.
Howard Charles Hudson, Appellant Pro Se. William David Muhr Assistant United States Attorney, Norfolk, Virginia, for Ap-pellee.
Before WILKINSON, KING, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Howard Charles Hudson seeks to appeal the district court's orders denying relief on his 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West Supp.2008) motion. The orders are not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2006). A certificate of appeal-ability 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 Hudson has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of ap-pealability, deny leave to proceed in forma pauperis, and dismiss the appeal. We also deny Hudson's motion for appointment of counsel and 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.