Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Michael Todd ROZELLE, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2007-08-29
Citations: 238 F. App'x 967
Docket Number: No. 07-6481
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Michael Todd ROZELLE, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before WILLIAMS, Chief Judge, and WILKINS and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 238
Pages: 967–967

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Michael Todd ROZELLE, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 07-6481.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: Aug. 23, 2007.
Decided: Aug. 29, 2007.
Michael Todd Rozelle, Appellant Pro Se. Gretchen C.F. Shappert, United States Attorney, Charlotte, North Carolina, for Appellee.
Before WILLIAMS, Chief Judge, and WILKINS and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
Michael Todd Rozelle seeks to appeal the district court's order dismissing his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000) motion as successive. The order is 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 Rozelle 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.