Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Raymond Edward GILL, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2008-04-23
Citations: 274 F. App'x 336
Docket Number: No. 08-6062
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, v. Raymond Edward GILL, Defendant—Appellant.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 274
Pages: 336–337

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, v. Raymond Edward GILL, Defendant—Appellant.
No. 08-6062.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: April 17, 2008.
Decided: April 23, 2008.
Raymond Edward Gill, Appellant Pro Se. Andrew George Warrens Norman, Assistant United States Attorney, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellee.
Before WILKINSON, NIEMEYER, and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
Raymond Edward Gill seeks to appeal the district court's order dismissing without prejudice his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000) motion as successive. 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 disposi-tive procedural ruling by the district court is likewise debatable. Miller-El v. Cock-rell, 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 Gill has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability, deny leave to proceed in forma pauperis, 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.