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: 2008-08-21
Citations: 291 F. App'x 529
Docket Number: No. 08-6668
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, v. James M. DEBARDELEBEN, Defendant—Appellant.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 291
Pages: 529–530

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, v. James M. DEBARDELEBEN, Defendant—Appellant.
No. 08-6668.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: Aug. 14, 2008.
Decided: Aug. 21, 2008.
James M. DeBardeleben, Appellant Pro Se. Gretchen C.F. Shappert, United States Attorney, Charlotte, North Carolina, for Appellee.
Before MICHAEL, Circuit Judge, and WILKINS and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

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 that any assessment 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 that DeBardeleben 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.