Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Carlos Vance REID, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2006-08-31
Citations: 197 F. App'x 244
Docket Number: No. 06-6798
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, v. Carlos Vance REID, Defendant—Appellant.
Judges: Before KING, SHEDD, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 197
Pages: 244–244

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, v. Carlos Vance REID, Defendant—Appellant.
No. 06-6798.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: Aug. 24, 2006.
Decided: Aug. 31, 2006.
Carlos Vance Reid, Appellant Pro Se. Brent Alan Gray, Office of the United States Attorney, Charleston, South Carolina, for Appellee.
Before KING, SHEDD, 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Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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:
Carlos Vance Reid seeks to appeal the district court's order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000) motion. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appeal-ability. 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 Reid has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny Reid'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