Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Demont Christopher BLUE, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2006-03-31
Citations: 173 F. App'x 269
Docket Number: No. 06-6193
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, v. Demont Christopher BLUE, Defendant—Appellant.
Judges: Before WILKINSON, LUTTIG, and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 173
Pages: 269–269

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, v. Demont Christopher BLUE, Defendant—Appellant.
No. 06-6193.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: March 23, 2006.
Decided: March 31, 2006.
Demont Christopher Blue, Appellant Pro Se. Michael Cornell Wallace, Office of the United States Attorney, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee.
Before WILKINSON, LUTTIG, and WILLIAMS, 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Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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:
Demont C. Blue seeks to appeal the district court's order dismissing as successive his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000) motion. 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 any assessment of his constitutional claims by the district court is debatable or wrong and that any dispositive procedural ruling by the district court is likewise debatable. 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 Blue 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