Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Barkley GARDNER, a/k/a Big Black, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2007-07-02
Citations: 231 F. App'x 284
Docket Number: No. 07-6502
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, v. Barkley GARDNER, a/k/a Big Black, Defendant—Appellant.
Judges: Before TRAXLER and GREGORY, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 231
Pages: 284–285

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, v. Barkley GARDNER, a/k/a Big Black, Defendant—Appellant.
No. 07-6502.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: June 6, 2007.
Decided: July 2, 2007.
Barkley Gardner, Appellant Pro Se. Christine Blaise Hamilton, Office of the United States Attorney, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee.
Before TRAXLER and GREGORY, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.
Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
Barkley Gardner seeks to appeal the district court's order and judgment 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 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 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 Gardner has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certifi cate 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.