Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Melvin SUMLER, a/k/a Clever, Defendant-Appellant, and E.L. Bowden, Jr., Party-in-Interest
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2008-03-10
Citations: 269 F. App'x 257
Docket Number: No. 07-7696
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, v. Melvin SUMLER, a/k/a Clever, Defendant—Appellant, and E.L. Bowden, Jr., Party-in-Interest.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 269
Pages: 257–258

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, v. Melvin SUMLER, a/k/a Clever, Defendant—Appellant, and E.L. Bowden, Jr., Party-in-Interest.
No. 07-7696.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: Feb. 28, 2008.
Decided: March 10, 2008.
Melvin Sumler, Appellant Pro Se. Gurney Wingate Grant, II, Office of the United States Attorney, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee.
Before WILKINSON, NIEMEYER, and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
Melvin Sumler seeks to appeal the district court's orders denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000) motion and treating his Fed.R.Civ.P. 60(b) motion as a successive 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000) motion, and dismissing it on that basis. The orders are 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 Sumler has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny Sumler'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.