Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Michael Vertoin SAUNDERS, Defendant-Appellant, and Michael Vertoin Saunders, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Stephen Dewalt, Warden, Respondent-Appellee
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2005-10-31
Citations: 147 F. App'x 392
Docket Number: No. 05-7288
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, v. Michael Vertoin SAUNDERS, Defendant—Appellant, and Michael Vertoin Saunders, Petitioner—Appellant, v. Stephen Dewalt, Warden, Respondent—Appellee.
Judges: Before NIEMEYER and SHEDD, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 147
Pages: 392–392

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, v. Michael Vertoin SAUNDERS, Defendant—Appellant, and Michael Vertoin Saunders, Petitioner—Appellant, v. Stephen Dewalt, Warden, Respondent—Appellee.
No. 05-7288.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: Oct. 20, 2005.
Decided: Oct. 31, 2005.
Michael Vertoin Saunders, Appellant Pro Se. Stuart A. Berman, Assistant United States Attorney, Greenbelt, Maryland, for Appellee.
Before NIEMEYER 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Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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:
Michael Vertoin Saunders, a federal prisoner, seeks to appeal the district court's order construing his petition filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (2000), as a successive motion under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000), and dismissing it for lack of jurisdiction. 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 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 Saunders 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