Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Izell GRANVILLE, Jr., Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2007-04-04
Citations: 223 F. App'x 219
Docket Number: No. 06-7745
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Izell GRANVILLE, Jr., Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 223
Pages: 219–220

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Izell GRANVILLE, Jr., Defendant-Appellant.
No. 06-7745.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: March 29, 2007.
Decided: April 4, 2007.
Izell Granville, Jr., Appellant Pro Se. Angela Hewlett Miller, Office of the United States Attorney, Greensboro, North Carolina, for Appellee.
Before MOTZ, TRAXLER, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
Izell Granville, Jr., seeks to appeal the district court's order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000) motion and the district court's order denying Granville's motion for reconsideration. 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 Granville 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 be fore the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
DISMISSED.