Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Larry TITTLE, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2006-10-23
Citations: 203 F. App'x 528
Docket Number: No. 06-7156
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, v. Larry TITTLE, Defendant—Appellant.
Judges: Before NIEMEYER, KING, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 203
Pages: 528–529

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, v. Larry TITTLE, Defendant—Appellant.
No. 06-7156.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: Oct. 17, 2006.
Decided: Oct. 23, 2006.
Larry Tittle, Appellant Pro Se. G. David Hackney, Assistant United States Attorney, Alexandria, Virginia, for Appel-lee.
Before NIEMEYER, 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Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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:
Larry Tittle seeks to appeal the district court's order denying his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000) motion. The order is not appeal-able unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2000). A certificate of ap-pealability 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 Tittle 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.