Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Adam Nicklous CARR, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2005-07-22
Citations: 139 F. App'x 561
Docket Number: No. 05-6217
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, v. Adam Nicklous CARR, Defendant—Appellant.
Judges: Before WILKINSON, LUTTIG, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 139
Pages: 561–562

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, v. Adam Nicklous CARR, Defendant—Appellant.
No. 05-6217.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: July 14, 2005.
Decided: July 22, 2005.
Adam Nicklous Carr, Appellant pro se. Douglas Cannon, Assistant United States Attorney, Greensboro, North Carolina, for Appellee.
Before WILKINSON, LUTTIG, and MOTZ, 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Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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:
Adam Nicklous Carr seeks to appeal the district court's order denying relief on his motion filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000). 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 his constitutional claims are debatable and that any dispositive procedural rulings by the district court are also debatable or wrong. 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 (4th Cir.2001). We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Carr has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. We also deny Carr's pending motions for "disclosure of grand jury minutes" and for an "extraordindary writ" under Fed. R.App. P. 21(c). 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