Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Mark T. MANUEL, Jr., Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2007-07-26
Citations: 234 F. App'x 60
Docket Number: No. 06-7524
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Mark T. MANUEL, Jr., Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 234
Pages: 60–61

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Mark T. MANUEL, Jr., Defendant-Appellant.
No. 06-7524.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: June 22, 2007.
Decided: July 26, 2007.
Mark T. Manuel, Jr., Appellant Pro Se. Alan Mark Salsbury, Assistant United States Attorney, Norfolk, Virginia, for Ap-pellee.
Before SHEDD and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.
Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
Mark T. Manuel, Jr., seeks to appeal the district court's order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000) motion. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appeal-ability. 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 Manuel has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of ap-pealability 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.