Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Taki Troy HUGHES, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2008-04-30
Citations: 275 F. App'x 266
Docket Number: No. 08-6311
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, v. Taki Troy HUGHES, Defendant—Appellant.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 275
Pages: 266–267

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, v. Taki Troy HUGHES, Defendant—Appellant.
No. 08-6311.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: April 24, 2008.
Decided: April 30, 2008.
Taki Troy Hughes, Appellant Pro Se. John Francis Purcell, Jr., Office of the United States Attorney, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellee.
Before KING and SHEDD, Circuit Judges, and WILKINS, Senior Circuit Judge.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
Taki Troy Hughes 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 Hughes 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.