Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Ian Earlston SMITH, a/k/a Christopher Williams, a/k/a Thumper, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2007-06-07
Citations: 229 F. App'x 251
Docket Number: No. 07-6081
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, v. Ian Earlston SMITH, a/k/a Christopher Williams, a/k/a Thumper, Defendant—Appellant.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 229
Pages: 251–251

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, v. Ian Earlston SMITH, a/k/a Christopher Williams, a/k/a Thumper, Defendant—Appellant.
No. 07-6081.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: May 31, 2007.
Decided: June 7, 2007.
Ian Earlston Smith, Appellant Pro Se. Elizabeth Catherine Wu, Office of the United States Attorney, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee.
Before WILKINSON, TRAXLER, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
Ian Earlston Smith seeks to appeal the district court's order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000) motion. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appeal-ability. 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 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 Smith has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability, deny Smith's motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis, 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.