UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 06-6305
VASU D. ARORA,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
versus
JOHN EDWARDS; MICHELLE DERRIKO; MICHAEL J.
BARBOUR; TERRY G. KILGORE; JOHN R. FLEDER;
DOES 1 THROUGH 25, inclusive,
Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western
District of Virginia, at Roanoke. Glen M. Williams, Senior
District Judge. (1:98-cr-00072-GMW; 7:05-cv-00188-JCT)
Submitted: June 22, 2006 Decided: June 30, 2006
Before NIEMEYER, MICHAEL, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Vasu D. Arora, Appellant Pro Se. Kevin Osborne Barnard, FRITH,
ANDERSON & PEAKE, Roanoke, Virginia, for Appellees.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:
Vasu D. Arora seeks to appeal the district court’s order
denying his motion for reconsideration of the denial of his motion
for production of documents following the denial of his 28 U.S.C.
§ 2255 (2000) motion.* The 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 the constitutional claims by the
district court is debatable or wrong and that any dispositive
procedural ruling by the district court is likewise debatable.
Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 336-38 (2003); Slack v.
McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000); Rose v. Lee, 252 F.3d 676, 683-
84 (4th Cir. 2001). We have independently reviewed the record and
conclude that Arora has not made the requisite showing.
Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the
appeal. Finding the appeal timely filed, we deny Appellees’ motion
to dismiss on that basis. We dispense with oral argument because
the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the
*
Arora filed the underlying action as a civil complaint
against the Defendants. The district court determined that his
action was, in effect, a § 2255 motion because Arora sought to
challenge the validity of his convictions and his sentence based on
his claims of ineffective assistance of counsel.
- 2 -
materials before the court and argument would not aid the
decisional process.
DISMISSED
- 3 -