Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Felix ORIAKHI, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2007-02-01
Citations: 216 F. App'x 282
Docket Number: No. 06-7886
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Felix ORIAKHI, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before WIDENER and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 216
Pages: 282–282

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Felix ORIAKHI, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 06-7886.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: Jan. 25, 2007.
Decided: Feb. 1, 2007.
Felix Oriakhi, Appellant Pro Se.
Before WIDENER and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.
Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
Felix Oriakhi, a federal prisoner, seeks a certificate of appealability to appeal the district court's denial of his Fed.R.Civ.P. 60(b) motion, which the district court correctly construed as a successive motion pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (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 by the district court are likewise debatable or wrong. See 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 Oriakhi 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.