Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Richard Doyle HUDSON, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2008-04-08
Citations: 272 F. App'x 280
Docket Number: No. 07-6857
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Richard Doyle HUDSON, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 272
Pages: 280–280

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Richard Doyle HUDSON, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 07-6857.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: Jan. 22, 2008.
Decided: April 8, 2008.
Richard Doyle Hudson, Appellant Pro Se.
Before WILKINSON, MICHAEL, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Richard Doyle Hudson 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 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). Á 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 Hudson has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny Hudson'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.