Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Shmir Al-Min MUHAMMAD, Defendant-Appellant; United States of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Shmir Al-Min Muhammad, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2007-10-22
Citations: 251 F. App'x 205
Docket Number: Nos. 06-8009, 07-6428
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, v. Shmir Al-Min MUHAMMAD, Defendant—Appellant. United States of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, v. Shmir Al-Min Muhammad, Defendant—Appellant.
Judges: Before WILKINSON, NIEMEYER, and KING, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 251
Pages: 205–206

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, v. Shmir Al-Min MUHAMMAD, Defendant—Appellant. United States of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, v. Shmir Al-Min Muhammad, Defendant—Appellant.
Nos. 06-8009, 07-6428.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: Oct. 18, 2007.
Decided: Oct. 22, 2007.
Shmir Al-Min Muhammad, Appellant Pro Se. Angela Hewlett Miller, Office of the United States Attorney, Greensboro, North Carolina, for Appellee.
Before WILKINSON, NIEMEYER, and KING, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
Shmir Al-Min Muhammad seeks to appeal the district court's order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000) motion, and a subsequent order denying his motion for reconsideration. The orders are not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 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 dem onstrating 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 Muhammad has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny Muhammad's motion for a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeals. 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.