Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Carlos Demetrice HORNE, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2009-02-26
Citations: 313 F. App'x 649
Docket Number: No. 08-8269
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, v. Carlos Demetrice HORNE, Defendant—Appellant.
Judges: Before WILKINSON, DUNCAN, and AGEE, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 313
Pages: 649–650

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, v. Carlos Demetrice HORNE, Defendant—Appellant.
No. 08-8269.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: Feb. 19, 2009.
Decided: Feb. 26, 2009.
Carlos Demetrice Horne, Appellant Pro Se. Olma N. Hawkins, Office of the United States Attorney, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee.
Before WILKINSON, DUNCAN, and AGEE, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
. Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Carlos Demetrice Horne seeks to appeal the district court's order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2006) motion and subsequent motion to reconsider pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 59. The orders are not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2006). 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) (2006). 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 dispos-itive 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 Horne 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.-