CAMERON CURRIE, District Judge
Defendant, proceeding pro se, seeks relief in this court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255. Defendant raises a single claim relating to the Fair Sentencing Act and its alleged effect on his case. The Government filed a motion to dismiss. Pursuant to Roseboro v. Garrison, 528 F.2d 309 (4th Cir. 1975), the court advised Defendant of the proper procedures to respond and the consequences if he failed to do so. Defendant has not responded to the Government's motion and the time for doing so has expired.
The court has reviewed the complete record in this case. For the reasons stated in the Government's response, which this court finds to be correct and adopts as its findings, the court grants the Government's motion to dismiss as to Defendant's claim for relief.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the Government's Motion to Dismiss is granted. The motion under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 is dismissed with prejudice.
CERTIFICATE OF APPEALABILITY
The governing law provides that:
(c)(2) A certificate of appealability may issue . . . only if the applicant has made a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.
(c)(3) The certificate of appealability . . . shall indicate which specific issue or issues satisfy the showing required by paragraph (2).
28 U.S.C. § 2253(c). A prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find this court's assessment of his constitutional claims is debatable or wrong and that any dispositive procedural ruling by the district court is likewise debatable.
See Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 336 (2003);
Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000);
Rose v. Lee, 252 F.3d 676, 683 (4th Cir. 2001). In this case, the legal standard for the issuance of a certificate of appealability has not been met. Therefore, a certificate of appealability is
denied.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Columbia, South Carolina
February 1, 2011