UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 09-6727
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff – Appellee,
v.
TRAVIS DEON DIXON, a/k/a Travis Deonn Dixon,
Defendant – Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle
District of North Carolina, at Greensboro. N. Carlton Tilley,
Jr., Senior District Judge. (1:05-cr-00173-NCT-1; 1:08-cv-
00312-NCT-WWD)
Submitted: July 23, 2009 Decided: July 30, 2009
Before WILKINSON and AGEE, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judge.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Travis Deon Dixon, Appellant Pro Se. Angela Hewlett Miller,
Assistant United States Attorney, Greensboro, North Carolina,
for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Travis Deon Dixon 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 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 (2003); Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000);
Rose v. Lee, 252 F.3d 676, 683-84 (4th Cir. 2001). We have
independently reviewed the record and conclude that Dixon 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
*
We recognize that Begay v. United States, 128 S. Ct. 1581
(2008), has abrogated United States v. James, 337 F.3d 387 (4th
Cir. 2003). However, Dixon is not entitled to relief on this
account. United States v. Hunter, 559 F.3d 1188 (11th Cir.
2009).
2
contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the
court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
DISMISSED
3