Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Albert Lee ROBBINS, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2006-05-23
Citations: 182 F. App'x 187
Docket Number: No. 06-6096
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, v. Albert Lee ROBBINS, Defendant—Appellant.
Judges: Before WILLIAMS, MOTZ, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 182
Pages: 187–188

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, v. Albert Lee ROBBINS, Defendant—Appellant.
No. 06-6096.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted May 16, 2006.
Decided May 23, 2006.
Albert Lee Robbins, Appellant Pro Se. Steve R. Matheny, Office of the United States Attorney, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee.
Before WILLIAMS, MOTZ, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
Albert Lee Robbins seeks to appeal the district court's orders denying relief on his motion filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000) and his motion to reconsider. The 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 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 the district court's assessment of his constitutional claims is debatable and that any dispositive procedural rulings by the district court are also debatable or wrong. 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 (4th Cir.2001). We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Robbins 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