Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Clifton Anthony GRANT, a/k/a Cliff, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2005-03-08
Citations: 122 F. App'x 681
Docket Number: No. 04-7775
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, v. Clifton Anthony GRANT, a/k/a Cliff, Defendant—Appellant.
Judges: Before NIEMEYER, WILLIAMS, and KING, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 122
Pages: 681–682

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, v. Clifton Anthony GRANT, a/k/a Cliff, Defendant—Appellant.
No. 04-7775.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: Feb. 24, 2005. .
Decided: March 8, 2005.
Clifton Anthony Grant, Appellant pro se.
Michael Edward Rich, Office of the United States Attorney, Alexandria, Virginia, for Appellee.
Before NIEMEYER, WILLIAMS, and KING, 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Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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:
Clifton Anthony Grant seeks to appeal the district court's order construing his "Motion to Dismiss the Case for Lack of Jurisdiction" as a 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000) motion, and dismissing the 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). 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 his constitutional claims are 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 Grant has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certifi cate 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