Case Name: James Edward THOMAS, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Patricia R. STANSBERRY, Warden, Respondent-Appellee
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2006-06-29
Citations: 186 F. App'x 381
Docket Number: No. 06-6132
Parties: James Edward THOMAS, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Patricia R. STANSBERRY, Warden, Respondent-Appellee.
Judges: Before NIEMEYER, MICHAEL, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 186
Pages: 381–382

Head Matter:
James Edward THOMAS, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Patricia R. STANSBERRY, Warden, Respondent-Appellee.
No. 06-6132.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: June 22, 2006.
Decided: June 29, 2006.
James Edward Thomas, Appellant Pro Se.
Before NIEMEYER, MICHAEL, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 86(c).

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
James Edward Thomas seeks to appeal the district court's orders construing his 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (2000) motion as a 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000) motion, denying it, and denying his motion for reconsideration. The orders are 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 rea sonable 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 Thomas 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.