Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Michael Earl CREWS, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2006-11-30
Citations: 207 F. App'x 314
Docket Number: No. 06-7076
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Michael Earl CREWS, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before TRAXLER and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 207
Pages: 314–315

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Michael Earl CREWS, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 06-7076.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: Nov. 21, 2006.
Decided: Nov. 30, 2006.
Michael Earl Crews, Appellant Pro Se. Michael Calvin Moore, Assistant United States Attorney, Norfolk, Virginia, for Appellee.
Before TRAXLER and DUNCAN, 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Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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 86(c).

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
Michael Earl Crews 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. § 2258(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 Crews has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny Crews'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.