Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Eric Anthony WIMBUSH, a/k/a E from DC, a/k/a Sid Dft 5:02CR37-11, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2009-02-05
Citations: 311 F. App'x 653
Docket Number: No. 08-7174
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Eric Anthony WIMBUSH, a/k/a E from DC, a/k/a Sid Dft 5:02CR37-11, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before MOTZ, KING, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 311
Pages: 653–653

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Eric Anthony WIMBUSH, a/k/a E from DC, a/k/a Sid Dft 5:02CR37-11, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 08-7174.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted Jan. 20, 2009.
Decided Feb. 5, 2009.
Eric Anthony Wimbush, Appellant Pro Se. Matthew Theodore Martens, Assistant United States Attorney, Charlotte, North Carolina, for Appellee.
Before MOTZ, KING, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Eric Anthony Wimbush 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 ap-pealability. 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 Wimbush 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