Case Name: UNITED STATES Of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Michael Stevenson VIANDS, a/k/a Mike, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2005-12-01
Citations: 155 F. App'x 721
Docket Number: No. 04-7798
Parties: UNITED STATES Of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, v. Michael Stevenson VIANDS, a/k/a Mike, Defendant—Appellant.
Judges: Before MOTZ, TRAXLER, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 155
Pages: 721–722

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES Of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, v. Michael Stevenson VIANDS, a/k/a Mike, Defendant—Appellant.
No. 04-7798.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: Nov. 22, 2005.
Decided: Dec. 1, 2005.
Michael Stevenson Viands, Appellant Pro Se. Thomas Oliver Mucklow, Assistant United States Attorney, Martinsburg, West Virginia, for Appellee.
Before MOTZ, TRAXLER, 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Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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 Stevenson Viands, a federal prisoner, seeks to appeal the district court's order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and denying relief on his motion filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000). 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 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 the district court's assessment of his constitutional claims is debatable or wrong and that any dispositive procedural rulings by the district court are also debatable or wrong. See 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 Viands has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dis miss the appeal. We deny Viands' motion to appoint counsel and 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