Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Francisco Alberto LOZANO-TORRES, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2007-11-14
Citations: 254 F. App'x 213
Docket Number: No. 07-6778
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, v. Francisco Alberto LOZANO-TORRES, Defendant—Appellant.
Judges: Before NIEMEYER, KING, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 254
Pages: 213–213

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, v. Francisco Alberto LOZANO-TORRES, Defendant—Appellant.
No. 07-6778.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: Oct. 24, 2007.
Decided: Nov. 14, 2007.
Francisco Alberto Lozano-Torres, Appellant Pro Se.
Before NIEMEYER, KING, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
Francisco Alberto Lozano-Torres seeks to appeal the district court's order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000) motion. 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, 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 Lozano-Torres 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 contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
DISMISSED.