Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Dennis Elijah JEMISON, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2005-05-25
Citations: 131 F. App'x 966
Docket Number: No. 05-6209
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, v. Dennis Elijah JEMISON, Defendant—Appellant.
Judges: Before LUTTIG, MOTZ, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 131
Pages: 966–967

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, v. Dennis Elijah JEMISON, Defendant—Appellant.
No. 05-6209.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted May 19, 2005.
Decided May 25, 2005.
Dennis Elijah Jemison, Appellant pro se. Janet S. Reincke, Assistant United States Attorney, Newport News, Virginia, for Appellee.
Before LUTTIG, MOTZ, and GREGORY, 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Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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.
Dennis E. Jemison seeks to appeal from the district court's order dismissing his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000) motion as a successive motion for which prefiling authorization had not been obtained. See 28 U.S.C. § 2244 (2000). 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); see Jones v. Braxton, 392 F.3d 683, 684 (4th Cir.2004). 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 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, 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 (4th Cir.2001). We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Jemison has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. We also deny Jemison's motion for authorization to file in the district court a successive § 2255 motion. 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