Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Robert Lawrence PAYNE, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2006-02-23
Citations: 167 F. App'x 973
Docket Number: No. 05-7906
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, v. Robert Lawrence PAYNE, Defendant—Appellant.
Judges: Before MICHAEL and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 167
Pages: 973–974

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, v. Robert Lawrence PAYNE, Defendant—Appellant.
No. 05-7906.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: Feb. 16, 2006.
Decided: Feb. 23, 2006.
Robert Lawrence Payne, Appellant Pro Se. John Leslie Brownlee, United States Attorney, Thomas Jack Bondurant, Jr., Assistant United States Attorney, Roanoke, Virginia, for Appellee.
Before MICHAEL and DUNCAN, 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Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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:
Robert Lawrence Payne seeks to appeal the district court's final order construing his Rule 60(b) motion as a successive 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000) motion and dismissing it as successive and without authorization from this court. The final 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 his constitutional claims are debatable 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, 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 (4th Cir.2001). We have independently reviewed the record and conclude Payne 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