Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Michael J. WALLACE, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2009-11-04
Citations: 349 F. App'x 821
Docket Number: No. 08-6197
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Michael J. WALLACE, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before WILKINSON and MOTZ, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 349
Pages: 821–821

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Michael J. WALLACE, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 08-6197.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: Oct. 22, 2009.
Decided: Nov. 4, 2009.
Michael J. Wallace, Appellant Pro Se. Keith Michael Cave, Office of the United States Attorney, Charlotte, North Carolina, for Appellee.
Before WILKINSON and MOTZ, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.

Opinion:
Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Michael J. Wallace seeks to appeal the district court's orders denying his 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West Supp.2009) and Fed.R.Civ.P. 59(e) motions. The district court's orders are not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. See 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2006). A certificate of ap-pealability will not issue absent "a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right." 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2006). 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 disposi-tive procedural ruling by the district court is likewise debatable. See Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 336-38, 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, 683-84 (4th Cir.2001). We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Wallace has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny Wallace's motion for production of a transcript at government expense, deny 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.