Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Angelo Marcellus IRVIN, a/k/a Peedie, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2006-01-24
Citations: 163 F. App'x 215
Docket Number: No. 05-7081
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, v. Angelo Marcellus IRVIN, a/k/a Peedie, Defendant—Appellant.
Judges: Before WILKINSON, TRAXLER, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 163
Pages: 215–216

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, v. Angelo Marcellus IRVIN, a/k/a Peedie, Defendant—Appellant.
No. 05-7081.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted Jan. 19, 2006.
Decided Jan. 24, 2006.
Angelo Marcellus Irving, Appellant Pro Se. Brian Lee Whisler, Robert E. Trono, Assistant United States Attorneys, Peter Sinclair Duffey, Office of the United States Attorney, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee.
Before WILKINSON, TRAXLER, and SHEDD, 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Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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:
Angelo Marcellus Irving seeks to appeal the district court's order denying his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000) motion and his 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 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, 336-38, 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 re viewed the record and conclude that Irving has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certifícate 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