Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Larry Edward CARTER, Jr., Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2007-10-23
Citations: 251 F. App'x 256
Docket Number: No. 07-6227
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, v. Larry Edward CARTER, Jr., Defendant—Appellant.
Judges: Before MICHAEL, MOTZ, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 251
Pages: 256–256

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, v. Larry Edward CARTER, Jr., Defendant—Appellant.
No. 07-6227.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: Oct. 1, 2007.
Decided: Oct. 23, 2007.
Larry Edward Carter, Jr., Appellant Pro Se. John Charles Duane, Assistant United States Attorney, Charleston, South Carolina, for Appellee.
Before MICHAEL, MOTZ, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
Larry Edward Carter, Jr., seeks to appeal the district court's orders denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000) motion and denying reconsideration of that order. 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 Carter has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, while we grant Carter's motion to supplement his motion for a certificate of appealability, 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.