Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Charles Lovell MOSELEY, a/k/a Cheeks, a/k/a Charles Bimis, a/k/a Charles Cheeks, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2007-05-01
Citations: 225 F. App'x 101
Docket Number: No. 06-6869
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Charles Lovell MOSELEY, a/k/a Cheeks, a/k/a Charles Bimis, a/k/a Charles Cheeks, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 225
Pages: 101–102

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Charles Lovell MOSELEY, a/k/a Cheeks, a/k/a Charles Bimis, a/k/a Charles Cheeks, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 06-6869.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: April 26, 2007.
Decided: May 1, 2007.
Charles Lovell Moseley, Appellant Pro Se.
Before WILLIAMS, MICHAEL, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
Charles Lovell Moseley seeks to appeal the district court's order denying as successive his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000) motion. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of ap-pealability. 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 rea sonable jurists would find that any assessment of the constitutional claims by the district court is debatable or wrong and that any dispositive procedural ruling by the district court is likewise debatable. 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 Moseley 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.