Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Michael Devon POWELL, a/k/a Petey, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2006-09-07
Citations: 199 F. App'x 205
Docket Number: No. 06-6633
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, v. Michael Devon POWELL, a/k/a Petey, Defendant—Appellant.
Judges: Before MICHAEL, MOTZ, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 199
Pages: 205–206

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, v. Michael Devon POWELL, a/k/a Petey, Defendant—Appellant.
No. 06-6633.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: Aug. 31, 2006.
Decided: Sept. 7, 2006.
Michael Devon Powell, Appellant Pro Se. Steve R. Matheny, Office of the United States Attorney, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee.
Before MICHAEL, MOTZ, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
Michael Devon Powell 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 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 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 Powell has not made the requisite showing. In addition, the court limits its review to the issues raised in Appellant's informal brief. See 4th Cir. R. 34(b). This court generally does not consider issues raised for the first time on appeal. See Muth v. United States, 1 F.3d 246, 250 (4th Cir.1993) (noting that issues raised for the first time on appeal are generally not considered absent exceptional circumstances). 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.