Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Angelo McCOY, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2006-05-16
Citations: 180 F. App'x 442
Docket Number: No. 05-6375
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Angelo McCOY, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before WILLIAMS, GREGORY, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 180
Pages: 442–443

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Angelo McCOY, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 05-6375.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted April 28, 2006.
Decided May 16, 2006.
Angelo McCoy, Appellant Pro Se. Philip S. Jackson, Assistant United States Attorney, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellee.
Before WILLIAMS, GREGORY, 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Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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:
Angelo McCoy, a federal prisoner, seeks to appeal the district court's order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000) motion. An appeal may not be taken from the final order in a post-conviction proceeding 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 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 McCoy 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.