Case Name: Paul Andrew STOKES, Jr., Petitioner-Appellant, v. UNITED STATES of America, Respondent-Appellee
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2006-02-09
Citations: 166 F. App'x 685
Docket Number: No. 05-7113
Parties: Paul Andrew STOKES, Jr., Petitioner—Appellant, v. UNITED STATES of America, Respondent—Appellee.
Judges: Before NIEMEYER, KING, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 166
Pages: 685–686

Head Matter:
Paul Andrew STOKES, Jr., Petitioner—Appellant, v. UNITED STATES of America, Respondent—Appellee.
No. 05-7113.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted Jan. 25, 2006.
Decided Feb. 9, 2006.
Paul Andrew Stokes, Jr., Appellant Pro Se. Janet S. Reincke, Assistant United States Attorney, Newport News, Virginia, for Appellee.
Before NIEMEYER, KING, and SHEDD, 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Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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:
Paul Andrew Stokes, Jr., seeks to appeal the district court's order denying relief on the claim in his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000) motion that counsel denied him the right to testify in his defense at trial. We previously remanded this claim to the district court for an evidentiary hearing. The district court has since held a hearing, denied relief on this claim, and entered an order to that effect. 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 the district court's assessment of his constitutional claims is 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 Stokes has not made the requisite show ing. Accordingly, we deny a certifícate 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.