Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Montiqua Jarvell BRYANT, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2006-05-19
Citations: 180 F. App'x 471
Docket Number: No. 05-7677
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, v. Montiqua Jarvell BRYANT, Defendant—Appellant.
Judges: Before WILLIAMS, MOTZ, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 180
Pages: 471–472

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, v. Montiqua Jarvell BRYANT, Defendant—Appellant.
No. 05-7677.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: May 16, 2006.
Decided: May 19, 2006.
Montiqua Jarvell Bryant, Appellant Pro Se. Michael Gordon James, Assistant United States Attorney, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee.
Before WILLIAMS, MOTZ, and TRAXLER, 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Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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:
Montiqua Jarvell Bryant seeks to appeal the district court's order granting the Government's motion to dismiss his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000) motion. An appeal may not be taken from the final order in a § 2255 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 any assessment of his constitutional claims by the district court is debatable or wrong and that any dispositive procedural ruling by the district court is likewise debatable. 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 Bryant 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