Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. Jermeer MARSHALL, Defendant- Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2005-09-02
Citations: 142 F. App'x 753
Docket Number: No. 05-6568
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff — Appellee, v. Jermeer MARSHALL, Defendant— Appellant.
Judges: Before TRAXLER and SHEDD, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 142
Pages: 753–754

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff — Appellee, v. Jermeer MARSHALL, Defendant— Appellant.
No. 05-6568.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: Aug. 25, 2005.
Decided: Sept. 2, 2005.
Jermeer Marshall, Appellant pro se. Ray B. Fitzgerald, Jr., Office of the United States Attorney, Charlottesville, Virginia, for Appellee.
Before TRAXLER and SHEDD, 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Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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:
Jermeer Marshall seeks to appeal the district court's order denying his motion to reconsider a prior order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000) motion. An appeal may not be taken from the final order in a habeas proceeding unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2000); Reid v. Angelone, 369 F.3d 363, 370 (4th Cir.2004) (applying the certificate of appealability requirement to appellate review of the denial of a Fed.R.Civ.P. 60(b) motion). A certificate of appealability will not issue for claims addressed by a district court 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 Marshall 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