Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Kenneth Junior SMITH, a/k/a Kenny Smith, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2005-02-04
Citations: 120 F. App'x 499
Docket Number: No. 04-7532
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, v. Kenneth Junior SMITH, a/k/a Kenny Smith, Defendant—Appellant.
Judges: Before LUTTIG and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 120
Pages: 499–500

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, v. Kenneth Junior SMITH, a/k/a Kenny Smith, Defendant—Appellant.
No. 04-7532.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: Jan. 27, 2005.
Decided: Feb. 4, 2005.
Kenneth Junior Smith, Appellant pro se.
Harold Watson Gowdy, III, Elizabeth Jean Howard, Office of the United States Attorney, Greenville, South Carolina, for Appellee.
Before LUTTIG and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
Kenneth Junior Smith seeks to appeal the district court's orders denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000) motion as successive. An appeal may not be taken from the final order in a § 2255 proceeding 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, 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 Smith 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