Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Alfred CALDWELL, a/k/a Big Al, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2007-11-29
Citations: 256 F. App'x 591
Docket Number: No. 07-7020
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, v. Alfred CALDWELL, a/k/a Big Al, Defendant—Appellant.
Judges: Before NIEMEYER, TRAXLER, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 256
Pages: 591–591

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, v. Alfred CALDWELL, a/k/a Big Al, Defendant—Appellant.
No. 07-7020.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: Nov. 20, 2007.
Decided: Nov. 29, 2007.
Alfred Caldwell, Appellant Pro Se. Laura Marie Everhart, Assistant United States Attorney, Norfolk, Virginia, for Appellee.
Before NIEMEYER, TRAXLER, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
Alfred Caldwell seeks to appeal the district court's order denying his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000) motion as an unauthorized, successive motion. 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 Caldwell 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.