Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Van A. LOVE, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2006-04-28
Citations: 178 F. App'x 230
Docket Number: No. 05-7530
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, v. Van A. LOVE, Defendant—Appellant.
Judges: Before MICHAEL, MOTZ, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 178
Pages: 230–230

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, v. Van A. LOVE, Defendant—Appellant.
No. 05-7530.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted April 7, 2006.
Decided April 28, 2006.
Van A. Love, Appellant Pro Se. Marshall Prince, Office of the United States Attorney, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appel-lee.
Before MICHAEL, MOTZ, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:
Van Allen Love seeks to appeal the district court's order denying relief on his motion filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000). The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certifícate of ap-pealability. 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 his constitutional claims are debatable 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 Love has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appeala-bility 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.