Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Elan Christopher LEWIS, a/k/a Jamal Xavier Harris, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2006-03-30
Citations: 174 F. App'x 148
Docket Number: No. 05-7963
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, v. Elan Christopher LEWIS, a/k/a Jamal Xavier Harris, Defendant—Appellant.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 174
Pages: 148–149

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, v. Elan Christopher LEWIS, a/k/a Jamal Xavier Harris, Defendant—Appellant.
No. 05-7963.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: March 23, 2006.
Decided: March 30, 2006.
Elan Christopher Lewis, Appellant Pro Se. David T. Maguire, Assistant United States Attorney, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee.
Before WILKINSON, LUTTIG, and WILLIAMS, 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Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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:
Elan Christopher Lewis, a federal prisoner, seeks to appeal the district court's order construing his application for a writ of audita querela as an unauthorized successive 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000) motion, and dismissing for lack of jurisdiction. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of ap-pealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2000). A certificate of appealability will not issue for claims addressed by a district court 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 both that the district court's assessment of his constitutional claims is debatable or wrong and that any dispositive procedural rulings by the district court are also debatable or wrong. 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 Lewis has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appeala-bility 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