Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Leon COLEMAN, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2007-02-12
Citations: 216 F. App'x 305
Docket Number: No. 06-7318
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Leon COLEMAN, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before WILKINSON, MICHAEL, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 216
Pages: 305–306

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Leon COLEMAN, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 06-7318.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: Jan. 31, 2007.
Decided: Feb. 12, 2007.
Keith Eric Golden, Krupman, Golden, Meizlish, Marks & Wittenberg, LLP, Columbus, Ohio, for Appellant. Stephen Matthew Schenning, John Francis Purcell, Jr., Office of the United States Attorney, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellee.
Before WILKINSON, MICHAEL, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
Leon Coleman seeks to appeal the district court's order denying his Fed. R. Civ.P. 60(a) motion for relief from the district court's judgment denying his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000) motion. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. See 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2000); Reid v. Angelone, 369 F.3d 363, 369 (4th Cir.2004). 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 that Coleman 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.