Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Maurice Edgar MCKENZIE, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2006-04-25
Citations: 177 F. App'x 314
Docket Number: No. 05-7832
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, v. Maurice Edgar MCKENZIE, Defendant—Appellant.
Judges: Before MICHAEL, KING, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 177
Pages: 314–314

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, v. Maurice Edgar MCKENZIE, Defendant—Appellant.
No. 05-7832.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted April 20, 2006.
Decided April 25, 2006.
Maurice Edgar McKenzie, Appellant Pro Se. Robert Hayden Bickerton, Assistant United States Attorney, Charleston, South Carolina, for Appellee.
Before MICHAEL, KING, and DUNCAN, 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Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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:
Maurice Edgar McKenzie seeks to appeal the district court's order denying relief on his motion for reconsideration of the denial of 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 his constitutional claims are 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, 336-38, 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 McKenzie has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny McKenzie's motion for 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.