Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Yacob Abdul FREEMAN, Defendant-Appellant; United States of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Yacob Abdul Freeman, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2007-12-17
Citations: 258 F. App'x 588
Docket Number: Nos. 06-7695, 07-7389
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, v. Yacob Abdul FREEMAN, Defendant-Appellant. United States of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, v. Yacob Abdul Freeman, Defendant—Appellant.
Judges: Before NIEMEYER, MOTZ, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 258
Pages: 588–588

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, v. Yacob Abdul FREEMAN, Defendant-Appellant. United States of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, v. Yacob Abdul Freeman, Defendant—Appellant.
Nos. 06-7695, 07-7389.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: Dec. 13, 2007.
Decided: Dec. 17, 2007.
Yacob Abdul Freeman, Appellant Pro Se. Michael Cornell Wallace, Office of the United States Attorney, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee.
Before NIEMEYER, MOTZ, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
In these consolidated appeals, Yacob Abdul Freeman seeks to appeal the district court's orders dismissing his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000) motion as untimely and denying his subsequent Fed.R.Civ.P. 59(e) motion. The orders are not appeal-able 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 dis-positive 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 Freeman has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny certificates of appealability and dismiss the appeals. 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.