Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Wayne Thomas SMITH, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2006-02-13
Citations: 166 F. App'x 93
Docket Number: No. 05-6754
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, v. Wayne Thomas SMITH, Defendant—Appellant.
Judges: Before TRAXLER and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 166
Pages: 93–94

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, v. Wayne Thomas SMITH, Defendant—Appellant.
No. 05-6754.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: Jan. 27, 2006.
Decided: Feb. 13, 2006.
Wayne Thomas Smith, Appellant Pro Se. Brian Ronald Hood, Assistant United States Attorney, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee.
Before TRAXLER and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.
Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
Wayne Thomas Smith seeks to appeal the district court's order denying his motion filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000). The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(e)(2000). A certificate of appealability will not issue absent "a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right." 28 U.S.C. § 2258(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, 336-38, 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 Smith 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