Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. George BENNETT, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2004-08-12
Citations: 104 F. App'x 328
Docket Number: No. 04-6986
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, v. George BENNETT, Defendant—Appellant.
Judges: Before LUTTIG, MICHAEL, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 104
Pages: 328–328

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, v. George BENNETT, Defendant—Appellant.
No. 04-6986.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted July 29, 2004.
Decided Aug. 12, 2004.
George Bennett, Appellant pro se. Benjamin H. White, Jr., Office of the United States Attorney, Greensboro, North Carolina, for Appellee.
Before LUTTIG, MICHAEL, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM.
George Bennett seeks to appeal the district court's order denying relief on his motion filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000) as successive. 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 ap-pealability 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 Bennett has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability.
To the extent Bennett's notice of appeal and informal brief could be construed as a motion for authorization to file a successive § 2255 motion, we deny such authorization. United States v. Winestock, 340 F.3d 200, 208 (4th Cir.), cert. denied, — U.S. —, 124 S.Ct. 496, 157 L.Ed.2d 395 (2003). 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