UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 06-7036
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
versus
TROY LAMAR MORTON,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western
District of North Carolina, at Charlotte. Graham C. Mullen, Senior
District Judge. (3:02-cr-00242-5)
Submitted: December 21, 2006 Decided: January 3, 2007
Before NIEMEYER, WILLIAMS, and KING, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Troy Lamar Morton, Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Troy L. Morton seeks to appeal the district court’s
orders denying relief on his purported “Motion Requesting a
Certificate of Appealability,” which the district court construed
as a 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000) motion,* and his motion for
reconsideration of that order. Neither order is not appealable
unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of
appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2000); Reid v. Angelone,
369 F.3d 363, 369 (4th Cir. 2004). 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 Morton 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
*
This was Morton’s third § 2255 motion. Previously, we denied
Morton authorization to file a second or successive § 2255 motion.
See United States v. Morton, No. 05-7887, 167 F. App’x 970 (4th
Cir. 2006) (unpublished).
- 2 -
contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the
court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
DISMISSED
- 3 -