Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Deshawn Antonio SIMMONS, a/k/a Deezie, a/k/a Shawn Simmons, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2007-09-17
Citations: 241 F. App'x 973
Docket Number: No. 07-6794
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, v. Deshawn Antonio SIMMONS, a/k/a Deezie, a/k/a Shawn Simmons, Defendant—Appellant.
Judges: Before WILKINSON, MOTZ, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 241
Pages: 973–973

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, v. Deshawn Antonio SIMMONS, a/k/a Deezie, a/k/a Shawn Simmons, Defendant—Appellant.
No. 07-6794.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: Sept. 11, 2007.
Decided: Sept. 17, 2007.
Deshawn Antonio Simmons, Appellant Pro Se. Leesa Washington, Office of the United States Attorney, Greenville, South Carolina, for Appellee.
Before WILKINSON, MOTZ, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
Deshawn Antonio Simmons 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 his constitutional claims are 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 Simmons 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.