Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Ashok Kumar THAKUR, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2007-02-16
Citations: 218 F. App'x 220
Docket Number: No. 06-6904
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Ashok Kumar THAKUR, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 218
Pages: 220–221

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Ashok Kumar THAKUR, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 06-6904.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: Jan. 24, 2007.
Decided: Feb. 16, 2007.
Ashok Kumar Thakur, Appellant Pro Se. Steven Hale Levin, Office of the United States Attorney, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellee.
Before WILKINSON, WILLIAMS, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
Ashok Kumar Thakur 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 ap-pealability. 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 his constitutional claims are 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, 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 (4th Cir.2001). We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Tha-kur has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, although we grant Thakur's motion to supplement and motion for judicial notice, we deny his 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.