Case Name: Cleveland Darnell COPELAND, Petitioner-Appellant, v. UNITED STATES of America, Respondent-Appellee
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2006-05-10
Citations: 179 F. App'x 893
Docket Number: No. 05-7642
Parties: Cleveland Darnell COPELAND, Petitioner—Appellant, v. UNITED STATES of America, Respondent—Appellee.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 179
Pages: 893–893

Head Matter:
Cleveland Darnell COPELAND, Petitioner—Appellant, v. UNITED STATES of America, Respondent—Appellee.
No. 05-7642.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted April 14, 2006.
Decided May 10, 2006.
Cleveland Darnell Copeland, Appellant Pro Se. Mythili Raman, Office of the United States Attorney, Greenbelt, Maryland, for Appellee.
Before WILKINSON, MICHAEL, and MOTZ, 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Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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:
Cleveland Darnell Copeland seeks to appeal the district court's orders denying his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000) motion and his motion for reconsideration. An appeal may not be taken from the final order in a § 2255 proceeding 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 both 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 Copeland 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