Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Tommy Carnel GENERAL, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2005-09-01
Citations: 142 F. App'x 196
Docket Number: No. 05-6292
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Tommy Carnel GENERAL, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before TRAXLER and SHEDD, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 142
Pages: 196–196

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Tommy Carnel GENERAL, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 05-6292.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: Aug. 25, 2005.
Decided: Sept. 1, 2005.
Tommy Carnel General, Appellant pro se. Rudolf A. Renfer, Jr., Assistant United States Attorney, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee.
Before TRAXLER and SHEDD, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.
Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
Tommy Carnel General seeks to appeal the district court's order denying relief on his motion filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000). 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 the district court's assessment of his constitutional claims is 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, 336-38, 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 (4th Cir.2001). We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that General has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny General's motions for a certificate of appealability and for appointment of counsel 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