Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Daryl WILKES, a/k/a D, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2008-11-26
Citations: 301 F. App'x 270
Docket Number: No. 08-4542
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Daryl WILKES, a/k/a D, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before MOTZ and GREGORY, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 301
Pages: 270–271

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Daryl WILKES, a/k/a D, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 08-4542.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: Nov. 20, 2008.
Decided: Nov. 26, 2008.
Marvin D. Miller, Alexandria, Virginia, for Appellant. William David Muhr, Assistant United States Attorney, Norfolk, Virginia, for Appellee.
Before MOTZ and GREGORY, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.
Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
Daryl Wilkes seeks to appeal the district court's order granting in part and denying in part 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, 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 Wilkes 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.