Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Douglas Alan JARVIS, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2005-12-01
Citations: 155 F. App'x 726
Docket Number: No. 05-6904
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, v. Douglas Alan JARVIS, Defendant—Appellant.
Judges: Before LUTTIG, WILLIAMS, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 155
Pages: 726–727

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, v. Douglas Alan JARVIS, Defendant—Appellant.
No. 05-6904.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: Oct. 14, 2005.
Decided: Dec. 1, 2005.
Douglas Alan Jarvis, Appellant Pro Se. Laura Marie Everhart, Assistant United States Attorney, Norfolk, Virginia, for Appellee.
Before LUTTIG, WILLIAMS, and SHEDD, 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Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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:
Douglas Alan Jarvis seeks to appeal the district court's order dismissing his motion for modification of sentence, which the district court construed as a successive 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000) motion and dismissed for lack of jurisdiction, and a subsequent order denying 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 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 Jarvis 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