Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Daniel HILL, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2006-11-20
Citations: 206 F. App'x 312
Docket Number: No. 06-6968
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, v. Daniel HILL, Defendant—Appellant.
Judges: Before WILLIAMS, MOTZ, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 206
Pages: 312–313

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, v. Daniel HILL, Defendant—Appellant.
No. 06-6968.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: Nov. 3, 2006.
Decided: Nov. 20, 2006.
Fred Warren Bennett, Bennett & Bair, L.L.P., Greenbelt, Maryland, for Appellant. Martin Joseph Clarke, Office of the United States Attorney, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellee.
Before WILLIAMS, MOTZ, 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Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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:
Daniel Hill seeks to appeal the district court's orders denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000) motion and denying his Fed.R.Civ.P. 60(b) motion for reconsideration. Neither order is appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2000); Reid v. Angelone, 369 F.3d 363, 369 (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 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 Hill has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny Hill'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.