Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Jimmy O'Neal BROWN, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2006-06-08
Citations: 184 F. App'x 338
Docket Number: No. 05-7859
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, v. Jimmy O’Neal BROWN, Defendant—Appellant.
Judges: Before NIEMEYER, MOTZ, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 184
Pages: 338–339

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, v. Jimmy O’Neal BROWN, Defendant—Appellant.
No. 05-7859.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: May 10, 2006.
Decided: June 8, 2006.
Jimmy O’Neal Brown, Appellant Pro Se. Michael Lee Keller, Office of the United States Attorney, Charleston, West Virginia, for Appellee.
Before NIEMEYER, MOTZ, and TRAXLER, 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Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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:
Jimmy O'Neal Brown 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 appeal-able 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. 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 Brown 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 be fore the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
DISMISSED.