Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Omar GREGGS, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2008-04-02
Citations: 271 F. App'x 373
Docket Number: No. 07-7518
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Omar GREGGS, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 271
Pages: 373–374

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Omar GREGGS, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 07-7518.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: March 27, 2008.
Decided: April 2, 2008.
Omar Greggs, Appellant Pro Se. John Lanier File, Office of the United States Attorney, Beckley, West Virginia, for Ap-pellee.
Before TRAXLER and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.
Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
Omar Greggs 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 ap-pealability 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 Greggs has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny Greggs' motion for a certificate of appeala-bility 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.