Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Terrence Renard RUSSELL, 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 98
Docket Number: No. 06-7724
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Terrence Renard RUSSELL, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 225
Pages: 98–99

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Terrence Renard RUSSELL, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 06-7724.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: April 26, 2007.
Decided: May 1, 2007.
Terrence Renard Russell, Appellant Pro Se. James L. Trump, Office of the United States Attorney, Alexandria, Virginia, for Appellee.
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Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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:
Terrence Renard Russell seeks to appeal the district court's order dismissing his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000) motion as a successive motion for which authorization had not been granted. See 28 U.S.C. § 2244 (2000). The order is not appeal-able 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 any assessment of the constitutional claims by the district court is debatable or wrong and that any dis-positive 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 Russell 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.