Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Cearful SPEIGHT, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2006-01-26
Citations: 164 F. App'x 367
Docket Number: No. 05-7316
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, v. Cearful SPEIGHT, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before WILKINSON, WILLIAMS, and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 164
Pages: 367–368

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, v. Cearful SPEIGHT, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 05-7316.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted Jan. 13, 2006.
Decided Jan. 26, 2006.
Cearful Speight, Appellant Pro Se. Fernando Groene, Office of the United States Attorney, Newport News, Virginia, for Appellee.
Before WILKINSON, WILLIAMS, and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
Cearful Speight, a federal prisoner, seeks to appeal the district court's order dismissing his motion under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (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); Jones v. Braxton, 392 F.3d 683 (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 Speight has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny his motion for 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