Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Michael Anthony BELL, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2006-05-23
Citations: 182 F. App'x 181
Docket Number: No. 06-6237
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, v. Michael Anthony BELL, Defendant—Appellant.
Judges: Before WILLIAMS, MOTZ, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 182
Pages: 181–181

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, v. Michael Anthony BELL, Defendant—Appellant.
No. 06-6237.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted May 16, 2006.
Decided May 23, 2006.
Michael Anthony Bell, Appellant Pro Se. Leesa Washington, Office of the United States Attorney, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellee.
Before WILLIAMS, MOTZ, and TRAXLER, 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Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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:
Michael A. Bell seeks to appeal the district court's orders denying his motion to dismiss the indictment, which the district court construed as a 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000) motion, and granting in part and denying in part his motion for reconsideration. The orders are 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 Bell has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny 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