Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Samuel Augustus STEWART, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2007-11-21
Citations: 254 F. App'x 992
Docket Number: No. 07-6456
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, v. Samuel Augustus STEWART, Defendant—Appellant.
Judges: Before WILLIAMS, Chief Judge, and MOTZ and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 254
Pages: 992–993

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, v. Samuel Augustus STEWART, Defendant—Appellant.
No. 07-6456.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: Nov. 15, 2007.
Decided: Nov. 21, 2007.
Samuel Augustus Stewart, Appellant Pro Se. Sharon Burnham, Office of the United States Attorney, Roanoke, Virginia, for Appellee.
Before WILLIAMS, Chief Judge, and MOTZ and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
Samuel Augustus Stewart seeks to appeal the district court's order construing his filing as a successive 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000) motion and dismissing it as such. 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 Stewart 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.