Case Name: Raymond Billy SIMS, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Edward R. MURRAY, Respondent-Appellee
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2006-05-03
Citations: 178 F. App'x 272
Docket Number: No. 05-7667
Parties: Raymond Billy SIMS, Petitioner—Appellant, v. Edward R. MURRAY, Respondent—Appellee.
Judges: Before NIEMEYER and MOTZ, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 178
Pages: 272–272

Head Matter:
Raymond Billy SIMS, Petitioner—Appellant, v. Edward R. MURRAY, Respondent—Appellee.
No. 05-7667.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: April 27, 2006.
Decided: May 3, 2006.
Raymond Billy Sims, Appellant Pro Se. Thomas Drummond Bagwell, Assistant Attorney General, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee.
Before NIEMEYER and MOTZ, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.

Opinion:
Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:
Raymond Billy Sims seeks to appeal from the district court's order denying his supplemental motion to amend his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2000) petition. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2000); see Reid v. Angelone, 369 F.3d 363, 370 (4th Cir.2004) (applying the certificate of appealability requirement to appellate review of the denial of a Fed.R.Civ.P. 60(b) motion). 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 or wrong and that any dispositive procedural rulings by the district court are also 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 Sims has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appeala-bility and dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequátely presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
DISMISSED