Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Terry Lee GREEN, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2005-06-02
Citations: 132 F. App'x 499
Docket Number: No. 04-7300
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Terry Lee GREEN, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 132
Pages: 499–500

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Terry Lee GREEN, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 04-7300.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: May 13, 2005.
Decided: June 2, 2005.
Terry Lee Green, Appellant pro se.
Rose Mary Parham, Assistant United States Attorney, Florence, South Carolina, for Appellee.
Before MICHAEL and MOTZ, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
Terry Lee Green seeks to appeal the district court's order construing his motion filed under 18 U.S.C. § 3742(a) (2000) as a motion filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000) and dismissing it as successive. 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 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 Green 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