Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Darty James REED, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2006-06-22
Citations: 187 F. App'x 276
Docket Number: No. 05-6584
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, v. Darty James REED, Defendant—Appellant.
Judges: Before WILLIAMS, TRAXLER, and KING, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 187
Pages: 276–276

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, v. Darty James REED, Defendant—Appellant.
No. 05-6584.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: June 9, 2006.
Decided: June 22, 2006.
Darty James Reed, Appellant Pro Se. Stephen Matthew Schenning, Office of the United States Attorney, Baltimore, Maryland, Daphene Rose McFerren, Office of the United States Attorney, Greenbelt, Maryland, for Appellee.
Before WILLIAMS, TRAXLER, and KING, 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Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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:
Darty James Reed, a federal prisoner, seeks to appeal the district court's orders denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000) motion, denying reconsideration of that order, and denying his motion to amend. The orders are 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 his constitutional claims by the district court is debatable or wrong and that any dispositive procedural ruling by the district court is likewise debatable. See 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 Reed 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.