Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Edward Antonio ROSE, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2006-10-23
Citations: 203 F. App'x 531
Docket Number: No. 06-7119
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, v. Edward Antonio ROSE, Defendant—Appellant.
Judges: Before NIEMEYER, KING, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 203
Pages: 531–531

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, v. Edward Antonio ROSE, Defendant—Appellant.
No. 06-7119.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: Oct. 17, 2006.
Decided: Oct. 23, 2006.
Edward Antonio Rose, Appellant Pro Se. Andrew George Warrens Norman, Assistant United States Attorney, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellee.
Before NIEMEYER, KING, and DUNCAN, 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Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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:
Edward Antonio Rose seeks to appeal the district court's order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000) motion. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of ap-pealability. 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 the district court's assessment of his constitutional claims 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, 683-84 (4th Cir.2001). We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Rose 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.