Case Name: UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Harry Carlos OWEN, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2006-04-07
Citations: 175 F. App'x 596
Docket Number: No. 05-7720
Parties: UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff—Appellee, v. Harry Carlos OWEN, Defendant—Appellant.
Judges: Before TRAXLER, GREGORY, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 175
Pages: 596–597

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff—Appellee, v. Harry Carlos OWEN, Defendant—Appellant.
No. 05-7720.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted March 30, 2006.
Decided April 7, 2006.
Harry Carlos Owen, Appellant Pro Se. Michael Lee Keller, Office of the United States Attorney, Charleston, West Virginia, for Appellee.
Before TRAXLER, GREGORY, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
Harry Carlos Owen seeks to appeal the district court's order adopting the findings and recommendation of the magistrate judge and denying relief on his motion filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000). An appeal may not be taken from the final order in a habeas corpus proceeding 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 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 Owen 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