Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Stanley HOBEREK, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2005-12-07
Citations: 157 F. App'x 617
Docket Number: No. 05-7173
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, v. Stanley HOBEREK, Defendant—Appellant.
Judges: Before MOTZ, TRAXLER, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 157
Pages: 617–617

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, v. Stanley HOBEREK, Defendant—Appellant.
No. 05-7173.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: Nov. 22, 2005.
Decided: Dec. 7, 2005.
Stanley Hoberek, Appellant Pro Se. Robert H. McWilliams, Jr., Assistant United States Attorney, Wheeling, West Virginia, for Appellee.
Before MOTZ, TRAXLER, and GREGORY, 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Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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:
Stanley Hoberek, a federal prisoner, seeks to appeal the district court's order denying relief on his 18 U.S.C.A. § 3582(c) (West 2000 & Supp.2005) motion, construed by the court as a successive 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000) motion. An appeal may not be taken from the final order in a habeas corpus 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 Hoberek 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