Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Lamont ALLEN, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2006-05-05
Citations: 179 F. App'x 172
Docket Number: No. 05-7932
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff — Appellee, v. Lamont ALLEN, Defendant— Appellant.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 179
Pages: 172–173

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff — Appellee, v. Lamont ALLEN, Defendant— Appellant.
No. 05-7932.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted April 27, 2006.
Decided May 5, 2006.
Lamont Allen, Appellant Pro Se. Rod J. Rosenstein, United States Attorney, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellee.
Before NIEMEYER 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Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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:
Lamont Allen, a federal prisoner, seeks to appeal the district court's order construing his petition for a writ of audita querela as an unauthorized successive 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000) motion. An appeal may not be taken from the final order in a § 2255 proceeding unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2000); Jones v. Braxton, 392 F.3d 683, 688 (4th Cir.2004). 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 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 Allen 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.