Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. David Allen WILSON, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2006-03-31
Citations: 174 F. App'x 153
Docket Number: No. 06-6176
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, v. David Allen WILSON, Defendant—Appellant.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 174
Pages: 153–153

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, v. David Allen WILSON, Defendant—Appellant.
No. 06-6176.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: March 23, 2006.
Decided: March 31, 2006.
David Allen Wilson, Appellant Pro Se. Rick A. Mountcastle, Office of the United States Attorney, Abingdon, 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Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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:
David Allen Wilson seeks to appeal the district court's final order dismissing his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000) motion because it was without authorization from this court. The final 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 his constitutional claims are debatable 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 Wilson 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