Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Steven Jeffrey MULLEN, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2006-03-02
Citations: 169 F. App'x 766
Docket Number: No. 05-7355
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, v. Steven Jeffrey MULLEN, Defendant—Appellant.
Judges: Before WIDENER, NIEMEYER, and KING, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 169
Pages: 766–767

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, v. Steven Jeffrey MULLEN, Defendant—Appellant.
No. 05-7355.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: Feb. 23, 2006.
Decided: March 2, 2006.
Steven Jeffrey Mullen, Appellant Pro Se. Alfred William Walker Bethea, Jr., Assistant United States Attorney, Florence, South Carolina, for Appellee.
Before WIDENER, NIEMEYER, and KING, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 86(c).

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
Steven J. Mullen, a federal prisoner, seeks to appeal the district court's order denying his motion seeking relief from his sentence and construed as a 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000) motion. An appeal may not be taken from the final order in a post-conviction proceeding unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appeal-ability. 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 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 Mullen 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