United States v. Puzey

No. 05-7817 | 4th Cir. | May 4, 2006

Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).

PER CURIAM:

Michael Paul Puzey seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying relief on his motion filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000). 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 that his constitutional claims are 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" court="SCOTUS" date_filed="2003-02-25" href="https://app.midpage.ai/document/miller-el-v-cockrell-122258?utm_source=webapp" opinion_id="122258">537 U.S. 322, 336, 123 S.Ct. 1029, 154 L.Ed.2d 931 (2003); Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473" court="SCOTUS" date_filed="2000-04-26" href="https://app.midpage.ai/document/slack-v-mcdaniel-118359?utm_source=webapp" opinion_id="118359">529 U.S. 473, 484, 120 S.Ct. 1595, 146 L.Ed.2d 542 (2000); Rose v. Lee, 252 F.3d 676" court="4th Cir." date_filed="2001-05-24" href="https://app.midpage.ai/document/rose-v-lee-773551?utm_source=webapp" opinion_id="773551">252 F.3d 676, 683 (4th Cir.2001). We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Puzey has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appeala-bility and dismiss the appeal. We dis*305pense 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