Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Ronald Joseph HAMILTON, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2006-02-22
Citations: 170 F. App'x 817
Docket Number: No. 05-7572
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, v. Ronald Joseph HAMILTON, Defendant—Appellant.
Judges: Before MICHAEL and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 170
Pages: 817–818

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, v. Ronald Joseph HAMILTON, Defendant—Appellant.
No. 05-7572.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted Feb. 16, 2006.
Decided Feb. 22, 2006.
Ronald Joseph Hamilton, Appellant Pro Se. James McCormick Webster, III, Kellogg, Huber, Hansen, Todd & Evans, P.L.L.C., Washington, D.C., for Appellee.
Before MICHAEL and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.
Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
Ronald Joseph Hamilton 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). A prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that the district court's assessment of his constitutional claims is 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 Hamilton 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.