Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Chandar BINGHAM, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2006-01-10
Citations: 161 F. App'x 301
Docket Number: No. 05-7029
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, v. Chandar BINGHAM, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 161
Pages: 301–302

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, v. Chandar BINGHAM, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 05-7029.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted Dec. 19, 2005.
Decided Jan. 10, 2006.
Chandar Bingham, Appellant Pro Se. Laura C. Marshall, Office of the United States' Attorney, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee.
Before NIEMEYER, WILLIAMS, and MICHAEL, 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Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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:
Chandar Bingham, a federal prisoner, seeks a certificate of appealability so as to appeal the district court's order denying relief on his motion filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000). A certificate of appealability mil 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 the district court's assessment of his constitutional claims is debatable and that any dispositive procedural rulings by the district court are also debatable or wrong. See 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 Bingham has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny Bingham's motion for 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