Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. James ROCKETT, III, a/k/a James Rocket, a/k/a James Rockett, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2008-12-23
Citations: 304 F. App'x 186
Docket Number: No. 08-6891
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, v. James ROCKETT, III, a/k/a James Rocket, a/k/a James Rockett, Defendant—Appellant.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 304
Pages: 186–187

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, v. James ROCKETT, III, a/k/a James Rocket, a/k/a James Rockett, Defendant—Appellant.
No. 08-6891.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: Dec. 11, 2008.
Decided: Dec. 23, 2008.
James Rockett, III, Appellant Pro Se. Darryl James Mitchell, Assistant United States Attorney, Norfolk, Virginia, for Appellee.
Before KING, SHEDD, and AGEE, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
James Rockett, III, 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 appeal-ability. 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 Rockett has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. Additionally, we deny Rockett's motions for production of transcripts and to expand the record. 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.