Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Joseph PHOENIX, a/k/a Kenny, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2006-06-06
Citations: 184 F. App'x 322
Docket Number: No. 05-7984
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, v. Joseph PHOENIX, a/k/a Kenny, Defendant—Appellant.
Judges: Before TRAXLER and KING, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 184
Pages: 322–323

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, v. Joseph PHOENIX, a/k/a Kenny, Defendant—Appellant.
No. 05-7984.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: May 22, 2006.
Decided: June 6, 2006.
Joseph Phoenix, Appellant Pro Se. Robert Hayden Bickerton, Assistant United States Attorney, Charleston, South Carolina, for Appellee.
Before TRAXLER and KING, 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Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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:
Joseph Phoenix seeks to appeal the district court's order denying relief on his motion filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000). The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(e)(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, 336-38, 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 Phoenix has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability, deny Phoenix's motion to ap point counsel, 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.