Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Johnny B. MILLER, a/k/a Johnny Bernard Miller, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2005-05-04
Citations: 127 F. App'x 670
Docket Number: No. 04-7927
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, v. Johnny B. MILLER, a/k/a Johnny Bernard Miller, Defendant—Appellant.
Judges: Before WILLIAMS, KING, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 127
Pages: 670–671

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, v. Johnny B. MILLER, a/k/a Johnny Bernard Miller, Defendant—Appellant.
No. 04-7927.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: April 28, 2005.
Decided: May 4, 2005.
Johnny B. Miller, Appellant pro se.
Before WILLIAMS, KING, and DUNCAN, 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Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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:
Johnny B. Miller, a federal prisoner, seeks to appeal the district court's order construing his motion to amend 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 the district court's assessment of his constitutional claims is debatable or wrong and that any dispositive procedural rulings by the district court also are debatable or wrong. See 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 Miller 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