Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Bryant Elliott DAVIS, a/k/a Joseph Butler, a/k/a Bryant Davidson, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2007-09-19
Citations: 242 F. App'x 16
Docket Number: No. 07-6841
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, v. Bryant Elliott DAVIS, a/k/a Joseph Butler, a/k/a Bryant Davidson, Defendant—Appellant.
Judges: Before GREGORY and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges, and WILKINS, Senior Circuit Judge.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 242
Pages: 16–16

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, v. Bryant Elliott DAVIS, a/k/a Joseph Butler, a/k/a Bryant Davidson, Defendant—Appellant.
No. 07-6841.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: Sept. 13, 2007.
Decided: Sept. 19, 2007.
Bryant Elliott Davis, Appellant Pro Se. Richard Charles Kay, Office of the United States Attorney, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellee.
Before GREGORY and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges, and WILKINS, Senior Circuit Judge.
Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
Bryan Elliot Davis seeks to appeal the district court's order denying relief on his Fed.R.Crim.P. 33 motion, which the district court properly construed as an unauthorized successive 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000) motion. The order is 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 any assessment of the constitutional claims by the district court is debatable or wrong and that any dis-positive procedural ruling by the district court is likewise debatable. 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 Davis 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.