Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Ronald E. WALKER, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2008-07-22
Citations: 284 F. App'x 46
Docket Number: No. 06-7848
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Ronald E. WALKER, DefendantAppellant.
Judges: Before NIEMEYER, MOTZ, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 284
Pages: 46–46

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Ronald E. WALKER, DefendantAppellant.
No. 06-7848.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: June 26, 2008.
Decided: July 22, 2008.
Ronald E. Walker, Appellant Pro Se. Stephanie Lou Haines, Office of the United States Attorney, Huntington, West Virginia; Michael Lee Keller, Office of the United States Attorney, Samuel David Marsh, Assistant United States Attorney, Charleston, West Virginia, for Appellee.
Before NIEMEYER, MOTZ, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
Ronald E. Walker seeks to appeal the district court's orders denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000) motion and his motion to amend. The orders are 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 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 Walker has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny Walker'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.