Case Name: Santos VALIENTE-RABANALES, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Gene JOHNSON, Director of the Department of Corrections, Respondent-Appellee
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2007-01-23
Citations: 214 F. App'x 335
Docket Number: No. 06-7606
Parties: Santos VALIENTE-RABANALES, Petitioner—Appellant, v. Gene JOHNSON, Director of the Department of Corrections, Respondent—Appellee.
Judges: Before WILKINSON, TRAXLER, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 214
Pages: 335–335

Head Matter:
Santos VALIENTE-RABANALES, Petitioner—Appellant, v. Gene JOHNSON, Director of the Department of Corrections, Respondent—Appellee.
No. 06-7606.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: Jan. 18, 2007.
Decided: Jan. 23, 2007.
Santos Valiente-Rabanales, Appellant Pro Se.
Before WILKINSON, TRAXLER, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
Santos Valiente-Rabanales seeks to appeal the district court's order denying his Fed.R.Civ.P. 60(b) motion for reconsideration of the district court's order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2000) petition. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certifícate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2000); Reid v. Angelone, 369 F.3d 363, 369 (4th Cir.2004). A certificate of appeal-ability 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 Valiente-Rabanales 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.