Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Everett HAGER, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2006-02-01
Citations: 164 F. App'x 411
Docket Number: No. 05-7294
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, v. Everett HAGER, Defendant—Appellant.
Judges: Before LUTTIG, WILLIAMS, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 164
Pages: 411–412

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, v. Everett HAGER, Defendant—Appellant.
No. 05-7294.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted Jan. 26, 2006.
Decided Feb. 1, 2006.
Everett Hager, Appellant Pro Se. Steven Ian Loew, Office of the United States Attorney, Charleston, West Virginia, for Appellee.
Before LUTTIG, WILLIAMS, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
Everett Hager seeks to appeal the district court's order denying relief on his motion for reconsideration of the district court's order adopting the magistrate judge's recommendation and denying relief on Hager's 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000) motion. An appeal may not be taken from the final order in a § 2255 proceeding 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 and that any dispositive procedural rulings by the district court are also debatable or wrong. See Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 336, 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 (4th Cir.2001). We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Hager 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