Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Derek Marquis FLEMING, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2006-09-05
Citations: 197 F. App'x 271
Docket Number: No. 05-7776
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, v. Derek Marquis FLEMING, Defendant—Appellant.
Judges: Before MICHAEL, MOTZ, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 197
Pages: 271–272

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, v. Derek Marquis FLEMING, Defendant—Appellant.
No. 05-7776.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: Aug. 31, 2006.
Decided: Sept. 5, 2006.
Derek Marquis Fleming, Appellant Pro Se. Angela Hewlett Miller, Office of the United States Attorney, Greensboro, North Carolina, for Appellee.
Before MICHAEL, MOTZ, 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Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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:
Derek Marquis Fleming seeks to appeal the district court's order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge, construing a motion for clarification of the criminal judgment as a successive motion 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 Fleming has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. We deny Fleming's petition for writ of mandamus as moot and 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.