Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Gregory McGail GARDNER, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2006-01-25
Citations: 163 F. App'x 246
Docket Number: No. 05-7265
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, v. Gregory McGail GARDNER, Defendant—Appellant.
Judges: Before WILKINSON, TRAXLER, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 163
Pages: 246–246

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, v. Gregory McGail GARDNER, Defendant—Appellant.
No. 05-7265.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: Jan. 19, 2006.
Decided: Jan. 25, 2006.
Gregory McGail Gardner, Appellant Pro Se. Eugene Joseph Rossi, Office of the United States Attorney, Alexandria, Virginia, for Appellee.
Before WILKINSON, TRAXLER, and SHEDD, 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Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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:
Gregory McGail Gardner, a federal prisoner, seeks to appeal the district court's order denying his motion under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000) as both time-barred and without merit. 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 the district court's assessment of his constitutional claims 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 Gardner 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