Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Bryant Elliott DAVIS, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2006-11-07
Citations: 205 F. App'x 104
Docket Number: No. 06-7145
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Bryant Elliott DAVIS, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before WILLIAMS, MICHAEL, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 205
Pages: 104–105

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Bryant Elliott DAVIS, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 06-7145.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: Oct. 31, 2006.
Decided: Nov. 7, 2006.
Bryant Elliott Davis, Appellant Pro Se. Thomas Michael DiBiagio, United States Attorney, Richard Charles Kay, Office of the United States Attorney, Baltimore, Maryland, James Gerard Pyne, Assistant United States Attorney, Towson, Maryland, for Appellee.
Before WILLIAMS, 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Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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:
Bryant Elliot Davis seeks to appeal the district court's May 9, 2006 order dismissing without prejudice his successive 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000) motion filed on April 27, 2006. 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 dis-positive 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 Davis 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.