Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Marc Pierre HALL, a/k/a Marc Valeriano, a/k/a Fella, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2008-04-23
Citations: 274 F. App'x 338
Docket Number: No. 08-6016
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, v. Marc Pierre HALL, a/k/a Marc Valeriano, a/k/a Fella, Defendant—Appellant.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 274
Pages: 338–338

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, v. Marc Pierre HALL, a/k/a Marc Valeriano, a/k/a Fella, Defendant—Appellant.
No. 08-6016.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: April 17, 2008.
Decided: April 23, 2008.
Marc Pierre Hall, Appellant Pro Se. Amy Elizabeth Ray, Office of the United States Attorney, Asheville, North Carolina, for Appellee.
Before WILKINSON, NIEMEYER, and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
Marc Pierre Hall seeks to appeal the district court's order treating his 18 U.S.C.A. § 3582 (West 2000 & Supp.2007) motion as a successive 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000) motion, and dismissing it 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); Reid v. Angelone, 369 F.3d 363, 369 (4th Cir.2004). 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 disposi-tive procedural ruling by the district court is likewise debatable. Miller-El v. Cock-rell, 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 Hall 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.