Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. DeWayne Anthony SHIFFLETT, Defendant- Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2008-04-08
Citations: 273 F. App'x 269
Docket Number: No. 07-7584
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, v. DeWayne Anthony SHIFFLETT, Defendant— Appellant.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 273
Pages: 269–270

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, v. DeWayne Anthony SHIFFLETT, Defendant— Appellant.
No. 07-7584.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: March 18, 2008.
Decided: April 8, 2008.
DeWayne Anthony Shifflett, Appellant Pro Se. Ray Burton Fitzgerald, Jr., Office of the United States Attorney, Charlottesville, Virginia, for Appellee.
Before WILKINSON, GREGORY, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
DeWayne Anthony Shifflett seeks to appeal the district court's order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and 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 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 Shifflett has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny Shifflett's motion for a certificate of ap pealability, deny his pro se motion for "Permission to file a writ of habeas corpus in the district court and consolidate briefs upon completion," 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.