Case Name: Andre Sylvester WATTS, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Kim WHITE, Regional Director, Defendant-Appellee
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2006-08-30
Citations: 196 F. App'x 230
Docket Number: No. 06-6662
Parties: Andre Sylvester WATTS, Plaintiff—Appellant, v. Kim WHITE, Regional Director, Defendant—Appellee.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 196
Pages: 230–230

Head Matter:
Andre Sylvester WATTS, Plaintiff—Appellant, v. Kim WHITE, Regional Director, Defendant—Appellee.
No. 06-6662.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: Aug. 24, 2006.
Decided: Aug. 30, 2006.
Andre Sylvester Watts, Appellant Pro Se.
Before KING, SHEDD, and DUNCAN, 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Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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:
Andre Sylvester Watts, a District of Columbia inmate incarcerated in Virginia, appeals the district court's orders denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (2000) petition and motion to reconsider. The orders are 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 Watts 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