Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Vance Edward INGRAM, III, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2006-09-08
Citations: 199 F. App'x 273
Docket Number: No. 05-7986
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, v. Vance Edward INGRAM, III, Defendant—Appellant.
Judges: Before MOTZ, GREGORY, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 199
Pages: 273–274

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, v. Vance Edward INGRAM, III, Defendant—Appellant.
No. 05-7986.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: Aug. 16, 2006.
Decided: Sept. 8, 2006.
Vance Edward Ingram, III, Appellant Pro Se. Angela Hewlett Miller, Office of the United States Attorney, Greensboro, North Carolina, for Appellee.
Before MOTZ, GREGORY, and DUNCAN, 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Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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:
Vance Edward Ingram, III, seeks to appeal the district court's order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000) motion. 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 any assessment of the constitutional claims by the district court is debatable or wrong and that any dispositive procedural ruling by the district court is likewise debatable. 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 Ingram has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny Ingram's motion for a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. We also deny his motion to authorize a transcript at government expense. Finally, 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.