Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Darrell W. SAMUEL, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2006-08-24
Citations: 195 F. App'x 190
Docket Number: No. 06-6657
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, v. Darrell W. SAMUEL, Defendant—Appellant.
Judges: Before MICHAEL and KING, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 195
Pages: 190–191

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, v. Darrell W. SAMUEL, Defendant—Appellant.
No. 06-6657.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: Aug. 16, 2006.
Decided: Aug. 24, 2006.
Darrell W. Samuel, Appellant Pro Se. Christopher Todd Hagins, Office of the United States Attorney, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellee.
Before MICHAEL and KING, 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Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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:
Darrell W. Samuel seeks to appeal the district court's order construing his 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) (2000) motion as a successive 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000) motion, and dismissing for lack of jurisdiction. 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 Samuel 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.