Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Darryl MORGAN, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2006-02-01
Citations: 164 F. App'x 415
Docket Number: No. 05-7239
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, v. Darryl MORGAN, Defendant—Appellant.
Judges: Before LUTTIG, WILLIAMS, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 164
Pages: 415–416

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, v. Darryl MORGAN, Defendant—Appellant.
No. 05-7239.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted Jan. 26, 2006.
Decided Feb. 1, 2006.
Darryl Morgan, Appellant Pro Se. Michael R. Pauze, Office of the United States Attorney, Greenbelt, Maryland, for Appellee.
Before LUTTIG, WILLIAMS, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
Darryl Morgan seeks to appeal the district court's order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000) motion. This 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 any assessment of his 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 (4th Cir.2001). We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Morgan 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