Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Derrick Earl MILLER, Defendant-Appellant; United States of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Derrick Earl Miller, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2009-06-03
Citations: 326 F. App'x 239
Docket Number: Nos. 08-8033, 08-8097
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, v. Derrick Earl MILLER, Defendant—Appellant. United States of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, v. Derrick Earl Miller, Defendant—Appellant.
Judges: Before WILKINSON, KING, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 326
Pages: 239–240

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, v. Derrick Earl MILLER, Defendant—Appellant. United States of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, v. Derrick Earl Miller, Defendant—Appellant.
Nos. 08-8033, 08-8097.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: May 28, 2009.
Decided: June 3, 2009.
Derrick Earl Miller, Appellant Pro Se. Elizabeth Jean Howard, Assistant United States Attorney, Greenville, South Carolina, for Appellee.
Before WILKINSON, KING, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Derrick Earl Miller seeks to appeal the district court's order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West Supp.2008) motion. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2006). A certificate of ap-pealability will not issue absent "a sub stantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right." 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2006). 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 dis-positive 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 Miller has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny certificates of appealability and dismiss the appeals. 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.
Miller filed two notices of appeal from the district court's order, which were docketed as separate appeals in this court.