Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Steven FOWLER, a/k/a Grease, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2007-02-27
Citations: 219 F. App'x 319
Docket Number: No. 06-7468
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, v. Steven FOWLER, a/k/a Grease, Defendant—Appellant.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 219
Pages: 319–320

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, v. Steven FOWLER, a/k/a Grease, Defendant—Appellant.
No. 06-7468.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: Feb. 5, 2007.
Decided: Feb. 27, 2007.
Steven Fowler, Appellant Pro Se. Sandra Jane Hairston, Assistant United States Attorney, Greensboro, North Carolina, for Appellee.
Before NIEMEYER, WILLIAMS, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
Steven Fowler seeks to appeal the district court's order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and denying relief on his 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 Fowler 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.