Case Name: UNITED STATES Of America, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. George Allen WARD, Defendant- Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2005-09-02
Citations: 142 F. App'x 757
Docket Number: No. 05-6749
Parties: UNITED STATES Of America, Plaintiff — Appellee, v. George Allen WARD, Defendant— Appellant.
Judges: Before TRAXLER and SHEDD, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 142
Pages: 757–758

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES Of America, Plaintiff — Appellee, v. George Allen WARD, Defendant— Appellant.
No. 05-6749.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: Aug. 25, 2005.
Decided: Sept. 2, 2005.
George Allen Ward, Appellant pro se. Robert Edward Bradenham, II, Assistant United States Attorney, Newport News, Virginia, 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Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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:
George Allen Ward, a federal prisoner, seeks to appeal the district court's order construing his motion to modify the term of his imprisonment as a successive motion under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000), and dismissing it for lack of jurisdiction. Ward also appeals the court's order denying his motion filed under Fed.R.Civ.P. 60(b). 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 reviewed the record and conclude that Ward 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