Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. William A. BRENNAN, III, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2006-06-13
Citations: 185 F. App'x 238
Docket Number: No. 05-7922
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, v. William A. BRENNAN, III, Defendant—Appellant.
Judges: Before TRAXLER, GREGORY, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 185
Pages: 238–239

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, v. William A. BRENNAN, III, Defendant—Appellant.
No. 05-7922.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: May 24, 2006.
Decided: June 13, 2006.
William A. Brennan, III, Appellant Pro Se. Morgan Eugene Scott, Assistant United States Attorney, Roanoke, Virginia, for Appellee.
Before TRAXLER, GREGORY, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
William A. Brennan seeks to appeal the district court's orders denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000) motion and subsequent motion to reconsider pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 59. The orders are 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 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, 336, 123 S.Ct. 1029, 154 L.Ed.2d 931 (2003); Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484, 120 S.Ct. 1595, 146 L.Ed.2d 542 (2000); Rose v. Lee, 252 F.3d 676, 683 (4th Cir.2001). We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Brennan has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the ap peal. 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.