Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. William Marcel BOYCE, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2006-10-02
Citations: 201 F. App'x 951
Docket Number: No. 06-6985
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, v. William Marcel BOYCE, Defendant—Appellant.
Judges: Before WIDENER and WILKINSON, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 201
Pages: 951–952

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, v. William Marcel BOYCE, Defendant—Appellant.
No. 06-6985.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: Sept. 26, 2006.
Decided: Oct. 2, 2006.
William Marcel Boyce, Appellant Pro Se. Michael Lee Keller, Office of the United States Attorney, Charleston, West Virginia, for Appellee.
Before WIDENER and WILKINSON, 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Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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:
William Marcel Boyce seeks to appeal the district court's order accepting in part the recommendation of the magistrate judge and dismissing his successive 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000) motion with prejudice. 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 Boyce has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny Boyce's motion for 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.