UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 05-6209

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus

DENNIS ELIJAH JEMISON, Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Jerome B. Friedman, District Judge. (CR-97-117; CA-01-395-2)

Submitted: May 19, 2005 Decided: May 25, 2005

Before LUTTIG, MOTZ, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Dennis Elijah Jemison, Appellant Pro Se. Janet S. Reincke, Assistant United States Attorney, Newport News, Virginia, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).

PER CURIAM: Dennis E. Jemison seeks to appeal from the district court’s order dismissing his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000) motion as a successive motion for which prefiling authorization had not been obtained. See 28 U.S.C. § 2244 (2000). The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2000); see Jones v. Braxton, 392 F.3d 683, 684 (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 the district court’s assessment of his constitutional claims is 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, 336 (2003); Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000); Rose v. Lee, 252 F.3d 676, 683 (4th Cir. 2001). We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Jemison has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. We also deny Jemison’s motion for authorization to file in the district court a successive § 2255 motion. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal

- 2 - contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED

- 3 -