Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Shaun Kevin HARRIS, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2006-01-31
Citations: 164 F. App'x 406
Docket Number: No. 05-7106
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, v. Shaun Kevin HARRIS, Defendant—Appellant.
Judges: Before MOTZ, KING, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 164
Pages: 406–407

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, v. Shaun Kevin HARRIS, Defendant—Appellant.
No. 05-7106.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: Jan. 6, 2006.
Decided: Jan. 31, 2006.
Shaun Kevin Harris, Appellant Pro Se. Robert H. McWilliams, Jr., Assistant United States Attorney, Wheeling, West Virginia; Sherry L. Muncy, Office of the United States Attorney, Clarksburg, West Virginia; Paul Thomas Camilletti, Office of the United States Attorney, Martinsburg, West Virginia, for Appellee.
Before MOTZ, KING, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
Shaun Kevin Harris seeks to appeal the district court's order adopting the report and recommendation of the magistrate judge and dismissing his petition 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(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 the district court's assessment of his constitutional claims is debatable and that any dispositive procedural rulings oy 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, 683-84 (4th Cir.2001). We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Harris 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