Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Jermaine Donnell KORNEGAY, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2006-11-03
Citations: 204 F. App'x 198
Docket Number: No. 06-7112
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Jermaine Donnell KORNEGAY, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 204
Pages: 198–199

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Jermaine Donnell KORNEGAY, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 06-7112.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: Oct. 23, 2006.
Decided: Nov. 3, 2006.
Jermaine Donnell Kornegay, Appellant Pro Se. Ethan Ainsworth Ontjes, Office of the United States Attorney, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee.
Before WILKINSON, TRAXLER, and SHEDD, 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Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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:
Jermaine Donnell Kornegay seeks to appeal the district court's order dismissing his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000) motion for failing to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. The order is not appeal-able 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 substan tial 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 Kornegay 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.