Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Maurice GREGORY, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2009-05-27
Citations: 325 F. App'x 238
Docket Number: No. 08-8121
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, v. Maurice GREGORY, Defendant—Appellant.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 325
Pages: 238–239

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, v. Maurice GREGORY, Defendant—Appellant.
No. 08-8121.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: May 21, 2009.
Decided: May 27, 2009.
Maurice Gregory, Appellant Pro Se. Laura Marie Everhart, Assistant United States Attorney, Norfolk, Virginia, for Ap-pellee.
Before MOTZ, TRAXLER, and AGEE, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit;

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
Maurice Gregory seeks to appeal the district court's order treating his self-styled Fed.R.CrimJP. .36 motion as a successive and unauthorized 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West Supp.2008) motion and dismissing it on that basis. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2006); Reid v. Ange-lone, 369 F.3d 363, 369 (4th Cir.2004). 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) (2006). 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 Gregory 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.