Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. James Claude BAILEY, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2005-09-02
Citations: 147 F. App'x 356
Docket Number: No. 05-7110
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, v. James Claude BAILEY, Defendant—Appellant.
Judges: Before TRAXLER and SHEDD, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 147
Pages: 356–357

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, v. James Claude BAILEY, Defendant—Appellant.
No. 05-7110.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted Aug. 25, 2005.
Decided Sept. 2, 2005.
James Claude Bailey, Appellant pro se. Michael R. Smythers, Assistant United States Attorney, Norfolk, Virginia, for Appellee.
Before TRAXLER and SHEDD, 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Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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.
James Claude Bailey seeks to appeal the district court's order dismissing his motion for resentencing, which the district court construed as a successive 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000) motion, and dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2000); see Jones v. Braxton, 392 F.3d 683, 684 (4th Cir.2004). 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 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 Bailey has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. To the extent that Bailey seeks authorization in his informal brief to file a successive § 2255 motion, we deny such authorization. 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