Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Leroy SCOTT, Jr., a/k/a Roy, Defendant-Appellant; United States of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Leroy Scott, Jr., a/k/a Roy, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2007-06-20
Citations: 230 F. App'x 294
Docket Number: Nos. 07-6061, 07-6563
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Leroy SCOTT, Jr., a/k/a Roy, Defendant-Appellant. United States of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Leroy Scott, Jr., a/k/a Roy, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before WIDENER, MICHAEL, and KING, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 230
Pages: 294–295

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Leroy SCOTT, Jr., a/k/a Roy, Defendant-Appellant. United States of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Leroy Scott, Jr., a/k/a Roy, Defendant-Appellant.
Nos. 07-6061, 07-6563.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: June 15, 2007.
Decided: June 20, 2007.
Leroy Scott, Jr., Appellant Pro Se. Laura Marie Everhart, Assistant United States Attorney, Norfolk, Virginia, for Appellee.
Before WIDENER, MICHAEL, and KING, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
Leroy Scott, Jr., seeks to appeal the district court's orders denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000) motion. The orders are 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 Scott has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeals. 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.