Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Donald Ray CLARK, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2006-05-19
Citations: 180 F. App'x 467
Docket Number: No. 05-7814
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, v. Donald Ray CLARK, Defendant—Appellant.
Judges: Before WILLIAMS, MOTZ, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 180
Pages: 467–468

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, v. Donald Ray CLARK, Defendant—Appellant.
No. 05-7814.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: May 16, 2006.
Decided: May 19, 2006.
Donald Ray Clark, Appellant Pro Se. Zachary T. Lee, Office of the United States Attorney, Abingdon, Virginia, 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Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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:
Donald Ray Clark seeks to appeal the district court's opinion and order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000) motion. 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 as sessment 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 Clark 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