Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Douglas Alan JARVIS, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2006-08-03
Citations: 193 F. App'x 234
Docket Number: No. 06-7088
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, v. Douglas Alan JARVIS, Defendant—Appellant.
Judges: Before WILLIAMS, MOTZ, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 193
Pages: 234–234

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, v. Douglas Alan JARVIS, Defendant—Appellant.
No. 06-7088.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: July 25, 2006.
Decided: Aug. 3, 2006.
Douglas Alan Jarvis, Appellant Pro Se. Laura Marie Everhart, Assistant United States Attorney, Norfolk, Virginia, for Appellee.
Before WILLIAMS, MOTZ, and TRAXLER, 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Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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:
Douglas Alan Jarvis, a federal prisoner, seeks to appeal the district court's order treating his motion under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) (2000) as a successive 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000) motion and dismissing it on that basis, and a subsequent order denying reconsideration. 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 Jarvis has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability, deny Jarvis' motion for leave to proceed in for-ma pauperis, 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