Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. James GOOSLIN, a/k/a Jimmy, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2010-05-06
Citations: 377 F. App'x 289
Docket Number: No. 09-7383
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, v. James GOOSLIN, a/k/a Jimmy, Defendant—Appellant.
Judges: Before MICHAEL, DUNCAN, and AGEE, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 377
Pages: 289–290

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, v. James GOOSLIN, a/k/a Jimmy, Defendant—Appellant.
No. 09-7383.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: March 22, 2010.
Decided: May 6, 2010.
James Gooslin, Appellant Pro Se. Erik S. Goes, Assistant United States Attorney, Charleston, West Virginia, for Appellee.
Before MICHAEL, DUNCAN, and AGEE, Circuit Judges.
Judge Michael was a member of the original panel but did not participate in this decision. This opinion is filed by a quorum of the panel pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 46(d).

Opinion:
Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
James Gooslin seeks to appeal the district court's order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and 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 certifícate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2006). 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) (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 Gooslin has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny Gooslin's motion for a copy of the Government's motion in limine, 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.