Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Brian Arden RICHMOND, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2006-06-21
Citations: 185 F. App'x 229
Docket Number: No. 06-6570
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Brian Arden RICHMOND, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before KING, SHEDD, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 185
Pages: 229–230

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Brian Arden RICHMOND, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 06-6570.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: June 15, 2006.
Decided: June 21, 2006.
Brian Arden Richmond, Appellant Pro Se. Michael Lee Keller, Office of the United States Attorney, Charleston, West Virginia, for Appellee.
Before KING, SHEDD, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
Brian Arden Richmond seeks to appeal the district court's order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000) motion. The order is not appeal-able 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 Richmond has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. See United States v. Morris, 429 F.3d 65 (4th Cir.2005) (holding that the relief discussed in United States v. Booker, 543 U.S. 220, 125 S.Ct. 738, 160 L.Ed.2d 621 (2005), is not available on collateral review to prisoners whose convictions became final before Booker was decided). 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.