Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Donte Rolando HARRIS, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2007-03-05
Citations: 219 F. App'x 295
Docket Number: No. 07-6045
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Donte Rolando HARRIS, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 219
Pages: 295–296

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Donte Rolando HARRIS, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 07-6045.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: Feb. 22, 2007.
Decided: March 5, 2007.
Donte Rolando Harris, Appellant Pro Se. James G. Warwick, Office of the United States Attorney, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellee.
Before WILLIAMS, MOTZ, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
Donte Rolando Harris seeks to appeal the district court's order construing his pleading as a successive motion filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000), and dismissing it for lack of jurisdiction. 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 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 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 Harris 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.