Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Kenny Montana HOLTON, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2007-04-06
Citations: 223 F. App'x 273
Docket Number: No. 07-6059
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, v. Kenny Montana HOLTON, Defendant—Appellant.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 223
Pages: 273–274

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, v. Kenny Montana HOLTON, Defendant—Appellant.
No. 07-6059.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: March 29, 2007.
Decided: April 6, 2007.
Kenny Montana Holton, Appellant Pro Se. Jane J. Jackson, Assistant United States Attorney, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee.
Before MOTZ, TRAXLER, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
Kenny Montana Holton seeks to appeal the district court's order construing his motion to amend the presentence report as a successive motion filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000), and dismissing it for lack of jurisdiction. The 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 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 dis-positive 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 Holton has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny Holton's motion for a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. We also deny Holton's motion for appointment of counsel and 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.