Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Mujaddid Rahim MUHAMMAD, formerly known as Stacey Lamar Marsh, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2006-11-28
Citations: 207 F. App'x 320
Docket Number: No. 06-7031
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Mujaddid Rahim MUHAMMAD, formerly known as Stacey Lamar Marsh, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before MICHAEL, MOTZ, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 207
Pages: 320–321

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Mujaddid Rahim MUHAMMAD, formerly known as Stacey Lamar Marsh, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 06-7031.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: Oct. 20, 2006.
Decided: Nov. 28, 2006.
Mujaddid Rahim Muhammad, Appellant Pro Se. Michael Lee Keller, Office of the United States Attorney, Charleston, West Virginia, for Appellee.
Before MICHAEL, MOTZ, and TRAXLER, 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Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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:
Mujaddid Rahim Muhammad seeks to appeal the district court's order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000) motion. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2000). A certificate of appealability mil 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 dispositive 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 Muhammad 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.