Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Craig A. MURPHY, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2006-03-23
Citations: 173 F. App'x 218
Docket Number: No. 05-7514
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, v. Craig A. MURPHY, Defendant—Appellant.
Judges: Before WILLIAMS and MOTZ, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 173
Pages: 218–219

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, v. Craig A. MURPHY, Defendant—Appellant.
No. 05-7514.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted Feb. 28, 2006.
Decided March 23, 2006.
Craig A. Murphy, Appellant Pro Se. David John Novak, Office of the United States Attorney, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee.
Before WILLIAMS and MOTZ, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.
Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
Craig A. Murphy seeks to appeal the district court's orders denying his motion under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000) and denying his motion to reconsider. The orders are 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 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, 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 (4th Cir.2001). We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Murphy 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