Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Steven Craig FROST, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2008-03-26
Citations: 271 F. App'x 310
Docket Number: No. 07-7277
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Steven Craig FROST, Defendant—Appellant.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 271
Pages: 310–311

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Steven Craig FROST, Defendant—Appellant.
No. 07-7277.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: Jan. 25, 2008.
Decided: March 26, 2008.
Steven Craig Frost, Appellant Pro Se. Jennifer Rebecca Bockhorst, Office of the United States Attorney, Abingdon, Virginia, for Appellee.
Before WILKINSON, MICHAEL, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
Steven Craig Frost seeks to appeal the district court's order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000) motion. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appeal-ability. 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 Frost has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability, deny leave to proceed in forma pauperis, 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.