Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Anthony Mark WILSON, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2008-08-21
Citations: 291 F. App'x 525
Docket Number: No. 08-6909
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, v. Anthony Mark WILSON, Defendant—Appellant.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 291
Pages: 525–525

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, v. Anthony Mark WILSON, Defendant—Appellant.
No. 08-6909.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: Aug. 14, 2008.
Decided: Aug. 21, 2008.
Anthony Mark Wilson, Appellant Pro Se. G. David Hackney, Assistant United States Attorney, Alexandria, Virginia, for Appellee.
Before MICHAEL, Circuit Judge, and WILKINS and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
Anthony Mark Wilson seeks to appeal the district court's order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000) motion, as well as its order granting in part and denying in part Wilson's Fed.R.Civ.P. 59(e) motion for reconsideration. The orders are not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. See 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. 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 Wilson 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.