Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Clarence JEFFERSON, Defendan-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2006-06-30
Citations: 187 F. App'x 311
Docket Number: No. 06-6337
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, v. Clarence JEFFERSON, Defendan—Appellant.
Judges: Before NIEMEYER, MICHAEL, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 187
Pages: 311–312

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, v. Clarence JEFFERSON, Defendan—Appellant.
No. 06-6337.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted June 22, 2006.
Decided June 30, 2006.
Clarence Jefferson, Appellant Pro Se. John Staige Davis, V, Office of the United States Attorney, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee.
Before NIEMEYER, 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Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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:
Clarence Jefferson seeks to appeal the district court's order construing his Fed. R. Civ.P. 52(b) motion as a successive motion under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000), and dismissing for lack of jurisdiction. 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 that Jefferson 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