Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Chad William CARLTON, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2006-04-26
Citations: 178 F. App'x 202
Docket Number: No. 06-6339
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, v. Chad William CARLTON, Defendant—Appellant.
Judges: Before MICHAEL, KING, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 178
Pages: 202–203

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, v. Chad William CARLTON, Defendant—Appellant.
No. 06-6339.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: April 20, 2006.
Decided: April 26, 2006.
Chad William Carlton, Appellant Pro Se. Thomas Richard Ascik, Office of the United States Attorney, Asheville, North Carolina, for Appellee.
Before MICHAEL, KING, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:
Chad William Carlton, a federal prisoner, seeks to appeal the district court's order dismissing his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000) motion as successive. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2000); Jones v. Brax-ton, 392 F.3d 683, 688 (4th Cir.2004). A certificate of appealability will not issue for claims addressed by a district court 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 both that the district court's assessment of his constitutional claims is debatable or wrong 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 Carlton has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of ap-pealability 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.