Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Craig Ira CLAPP, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2006-07-07
Citations: 189 F. App'x 187
Docket Number: No. 05-7982
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, v. Craig Ira CLAPP, Defendant—Appellant.
Judges: Before NIEMEYER, MICHAEL, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 189
Pages: 187–188

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, v. Craig Ira CLAPP, Defendant—Appellant.
No. 05-7982.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted June 16, 2006.
Decided July 7, 2006.
Craig Ira Clapp, Appellant Pro Se. John Eric Evenson II, Assistant United States Attorney, Steve R. Matheny, Office of the United States Attorney, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee.
Before NIEMEYER, MICHAEL, 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Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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:
Craig Ira Clapp seeks to appeal the district court's order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000) motion. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appeal-ability. 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(e)(2) (2000). A prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that any assessment of his constitutional claims by the district court is debatable or wrong and that any dispositive procedural ruling by the district court is likewise debatable. 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 Clapp 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.