UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 07-7279
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
BILLY RAY FAIRLEY, SR.,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle
District of North Carolina, at Durham. James A. Beaty, Jr.,
District Judge. (1:02-cr-00229-JAB; 1:07-cv-00475-JAB)
Submitted: March 27, 2008 Decided: April 1, 2008
Before TRAXLER and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judge.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Billy Ray Fairley, Sr., Appellant Pro Se. Randall Stuart Galyon,
Assistant United States Attorney; Angela Hewlett Miller, OFFICE OF
THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Greensboro, North Carolina, for
Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Billy Ray Fairley, Sr., seeks to appeal the district
court’s order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge,
treating his 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) (2000) motion as a successive
28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000) motion, and dismissing it on that basis.
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 Fairley has not
made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny Fairley’s motion
for 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
- 2 -