Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Christopher R. WOODBERRY, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2008-01-23
Citations: 267 F. App'x 221
Docket Number: No. 07-6469
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Christopher R. WOODBERRY, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before KING, GREGORY, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 267
Pages: 221–222

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Christopher R. WOODBERRY, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 07-6469.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: Nov. 30, 2007.
Decided: Jan. 23, 2008.
Christopher R. Woodberry, Appellant Pro Se. Rose Mary Parham, Assistant United States Attorney, Florence, South Carolina, for Appellee.
Before KING, GREGORY, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
Christopher Raphael Woodberry seeks to appeal the district court's order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000) 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 Woodberry has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. We also deny Woodberry's motion to expedite 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.
To the extent that the district court erred in finding that several of Woodberry's ineffective assistance claims were precluded because they were encompassed in our decision on direct appeal, we have reviewed these claims on the merits and conclude that no certificate of appealability is warranted. See generally United States v. King, 119 F.3d 290, 295 (4th Cir.1997) (noting that ineffective assistance claims are not generally cognizable on direct appeal).