Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Al James SMITH, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2008-04-21
Citations: 310 F. App'x 566
Docket Number: No. 07-7647
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, v. Al James SMITH, Defendant—Appellant.
Judges: Before WILKINSON, NIEMEYER, and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 310
Pages: 566–567

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, v. Al James SMITH, Defendant—Appellant.
No. 07-7647.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: April 17, 2008.
Decided: April 21, 2008.
A1 James Smith, Appellant Pro Se. Steve R. Matheny, Office of the United States Attorney, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee.
Before WILKINSON, NIEMEYER, and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Al James Smith seeks to appeal the district court's order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000) motion. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appeal-ability. 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 Smith has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dis miss the appeal. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
DISMISSED.