Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. Margarito Diaz ORTIZ, a/k/a Margarito Diaz, Defendant- Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2008-09-24
Citations: 294 F. App'x 45
Docket Number: No. 08-7251
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff — Appellee, v. Margarito Diaz ORTIZ, a/k/a Margarito Diaz, Defendant— Appellant.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 294
Pages: 45–46

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff — Appellee, v. Margarito Diaz ORTIZ, a/k/a Margarito Diaz, Defendant— Appellant.
No. 08-7251.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: Sept. 16, 2008.
Decided: Sept. 24, 2008.
Margarito Diaz Ortiz, Appellant Pro Se. Michael Calvin Moore, Assistant United States Attorney, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee.
Before MOTZ, TRAXLER, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
Margarito Diaz Ortiz seeks to appeal the district court's order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000) motion and a subsequent order denying his motion for a certificate of appealability. These 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 ab sent "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 Ortiz 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.