Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Kevin Lowell BRITT, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2006-06-26
Citations: 188 F. App'x 164
Docket Number: No. 05-7430
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Kevin Lowell BRITT, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 188
Pages: 164–165

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Kevin Lowell BRITT, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 05-7430.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: June 22, 2006.
Decided: June 26, 2006.
Kevin Lowell Britt, Appellant Pro Se. James Ashford Metcalfe, Assistant United States Attorney, Norfolk, Virginia, for Appellee.
Before NIEMEYER, MICHAEL, and GREGORY, 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Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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:
Kevin Lowell Britt 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 rea sonable 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 Britt 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.