Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Kemuel Cornelius MINGO, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2009-09-18
Citations: 332 F. App'x 874
Docket Number: No. 09-6720
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Kemuel Cornelius MINGO, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before WILKINSON, KING, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 332
Pages: 874–874

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Kemuel Cornelius MINGO, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 09-6720.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: Sept. 11, 2009.
Decided: Sept. 18, 2009.
Kemuel Cornelius Mingo, Appellant Pro Se. Robert John Gleason, Assistant United States Attorney, Charlotte, North 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Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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:
Kemuel Cornelius Mingo seeks to appeal the district court's order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West Supp.2009) 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 appeal-ability will not issue absent "a substantial 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 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 Mingo has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appeala-bility and dismiss the appeal. We deny the motion for appointment of counsel and 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.