Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Jamie William SITES, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2006-11-08
Citations: 205 F. App'x 135
Docket Number: No. 06-7494
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Jamie William SITES, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before WILLIAMS, MICHAEL, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 205
Pages: 135–136

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Jamie William SITES, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 06-7494.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: Oct. 31, 2006.
Decided: Nov. 8, 2006.
Jamie William Sites, Appellant Pro Se. Sherry L. Muncy, Office of the United States Attorney, Clarksburg, West Virginia, for Appellee.
Before WILLIAMS, 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Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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:
Jamie William Sites, a federal prisoner, seeks a certificate of appealability to appeal the district court's denial of his Fed. R.Civ.P. 60(b) motion, which the district court construed as a successive motion pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (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 likewise 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 that Sites 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.