Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Erskine HARTWELL, a/k/a Pee Wee, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2006-08-01
Citations: 193 F. App'x 226
Docket Number: No. 06-6372
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, v. Erskine HARTWELL, a/k/a Pee Wee, Defendant—Appellant.
Judges: Before WILLIAMS, MOTZ, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 193
Pages: 226–226

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, v. Erskine HARTWELL, a/k/a Pee Wee, Defendant—Appellant.
No. 06-6372.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: July 25, 2006.
Decided: Aug. 1, 2006.
Erskine Hartwell, Appellant Pro Se. Sandra Wilkinson, Stuart A. Berman, Assistant United States Attorneys, James Marton Trusty, Office of the United States Attorney, Greenbelt, Maryland, 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Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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:
Erskine Hartwell seeks to appeal the district court's order denying relief on his application for a certificate of appealability. 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 Hartwell 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
To the extent Hartwell seeks on appeal to raise claims not previously presented to the district court, we decline consideration of such claims.