Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. James M. DEBARDELEBEN, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2005-07-27
Citations: 139 F. App'x 592
Docket Number: No. 05-6606
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, v. James M. DEBARDELEBEN, Defendant—Appellant.
Judges: Before WILKINSON, LUTTIG, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 139
Pages: 592–593

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, v. James M. DEBARDELEBEN, Defendant—Appellant.
No. 05-6606.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: July 14, 2005.
Decided: July 27, 2005.
James M. DeBardeleben, Appellant pro se. Tarra DeShields Minnis, Office of the United States Attorney, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellee.
Before WILKINSON, LUTTIG, and MOTZ, 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Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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:
James M. DeBardeleben seeks to appeal the district court's order dismissing as successive 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 both that the district court's assessment of the constitutional claims is debatable or wrong and that any dispositive procedural rulings by the district court are also debatable or wrong. 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 De-Bardeleben 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