Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Darius Keith RAINEY, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2006-04-10
Citations: 175 F. App'x 611
Docket Number: No. 05-7847
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, v. Darius Keith RAINEY, Defendant—Appellant.
Judges: Before TRAXLER, GREGORY, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 175
Pages: 611–612

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, v. Darius Keith RAINEY, Defendant—Appellant.
No. 05-7847.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: March 30, 2006.
Decided: April 10, 2006.
Darius Keith Rainey, Appellant Pro Se. Gretchen C.F. Shappert, United States Attorney, Charlotte, North Carolina, for Appellee.
Before TRAXLER, GREGORY, and SHEDD, 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Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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:
Darius Keith Rainey seeks to appeal the district court's order denying as successive his motion filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000). 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 appeal-ability 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 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 Rainey 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