Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. George HARRIS, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2006-08-03
Citations: 193 F. App'x 244
Docket Number: No. 06-6639
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, v. George HARRIS, Defendant—Appellant.
Judges: Before WILLIAMS, MOTZ, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 193
Pages: 244–244

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, v. George HARRIS, Defendant—Appellant.
No. 06-6639.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: July 25, 2006.
Decided: Aug. 3, 2006.
George Harris, Appellant Pro Se. Robert Joseph Seidel, Jr., Assistant United States Attorney, Norfolk, Virginia; Charles Dee Griffith, Jr., Office of the United States Attorney, Newport News, Virginia, for Appellee.
Before WILLIAMS, MOTZ, and TRAXLER, 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Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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:
George Harris seeks to appeal the district court's order treating his Application for Writ of Audita Querala as a successive 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000) motion and denying relief on that basis. 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 Harris 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