Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Arthur W. PRIVOTT, a/k/a Big Bud, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2005-12-15
Citations: 158 F. App'x 438
Docket Number: No. 05-6674
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, v. Arthur W. PRIVOTT, a/k/a Big Bud, Defendant—Appellant.
Judges: Before NIEMEYER, LUTTIG, and KING, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 158
Pages: 438–439

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, v. Arthur W. PRIVOTT, a/k/a Big Bud, Defendant—Appellant.
No. 05-6674.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted Nov. 30, 2005.
Decided Dec. 15, 2005.
Arthur W. Privott, Appellant Pro Se. Fenita Morris Shepard, Office of the United States Attorney, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee.
Before NIEMEYER, LUTTIG, and KING, 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Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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:
Arthur W. Privott seeks to appeal the district court's order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000) motion after remand by this court. This 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 mil 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, 336-38, 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 (4th Cir.2001). We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Privott has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability, deny Privott's motion for appointment of counsel, 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