Case Name: UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Darron OWENS, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2006-01-20
Citations: 162 F. App'x 253
Docket Number: No. 04-7832
Parties: UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff—Appellee, v. Darron OWENS, Defendant—Appellant.
Judges: Before MOTZ, TRAXLER, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 162
Pages: 253–253

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff—Appellee, v. Darron OWENS, Defendant—Appellant.
No. 04-7832.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: Dec. 21, 2005.
Decided: Jan. 20, 2006.
Darron Owens, Appellant Pro Se. Stacey Denise Haynes, Office of the United States Attorney, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellee.
Before MOTZ, TRAXLER, 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Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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:
Darron Owens seeks to appeal the district court's orders granting summary judgment on his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000) petition and denying his subsequent motion to reconsider pursuant to Fed. R.Civ.P. 59. The orders are 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 the district court's assessment of his constitutional claims is 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); Reid v. Angelone, 369 F.3d 363, 371 (4th Cir.2004); Rose v. Lee, 252 F.3d 676, 683-84 (4th Cir.2001). We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Owens 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