Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Patrick Kit PLUMLEE, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2010-04-28
Citations: 376 F. App'x 308
Docket Number: No. 10-6209
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Patrick Kit PLUMLEE, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before TRAXLER, Chief Judge, and KING and AGEE, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 376
Pages: 308–308

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Patrick Kit PLUMLEE, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 10-6209.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: April 22, 2010.
Decided: April 28, 2010.
Patrick Kit Plumlee, Appellant Pro Se. Kevin Michael Comstock, Assistant United States Attorney, Norfolk, Virginia, Stephen Wiley Miller, Assistant United States Attorney, Richmond, Virginia, for Appel-lee.
Before TRAXLER, Chief Judge, and KING and AGEE, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Patrick Kit Plumlee seeks to appeal the district court's order construing Plumlee's Fed.R.Crim.P. 35(a) motion pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (West Supp.2009) and dismissing it as successive. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2006). 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) (2006). 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 dispos-itive 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 Plumlee 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.