Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Patrick Stephen WALSH, a/k/a Patrick Steven Walsh, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2010-05-11
Citations: 377 F. App'x 331
Docket Number: No. 09-8171
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Patrick Stephen WALSH, a/k/a Patrick Steven Walsh, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before WILKINSON, NIEMEYER, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 377
Pages: 331–332

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Patrick Stephen WALSH, a/k/a Patrick Steven Walsh, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 09-8171.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: April 22, 2010.
Decided: May 11, 2010.
Patrick Stephen Walsh, Appellant Pro Se. Chan Park, Assistant United States Attorney, Greenbelt, Maryland, for Appel-lee.
Before WILKINSON, NIEMEYER, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Patrick Stephen Walsh 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 ap-pealability will not issue absent "a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right." 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2). 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, 484-85, 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 Walsh has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of ap-pealability 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.