Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Anthony MCQUEEN, Defendant-Appellant; United States of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Anthony McQueen, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2010-02-24
Citations: 366 F. App'x 477
Docket Number: Nos. 09-7810, 09-8143
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Anthony MCQUEEN, Defendant-Appellant. United States of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Anthony McQueen, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before WILKINSON, MICHAEL, and KING, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 366
Pages: 477–478

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Anthony MCQUEEN, Defendant-Appellant. United States of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Anthony McQueen, Defendant-Appellant.
Nos. 09-7810, 09-8143.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: Feb. 18, 2010.
Decided: Feb. 24, 2010.
Anthony McQueen, Appellant Pro Se. Michelle C. Brice, Office of the United States Attorney, Alexandria, Virginia, for Appellee.
Before WILKINSON, MICHAEL, and KING, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Anthony McQueen seeks to appeal the district court's orders denying relief on his 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West Supp.2009) motion and Fed.R.Civ.P. 60(b) motion for reconsideration. The orders are not appeal-able unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2006). A certificate of ap-pealability 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 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 McQueen has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny McQueen's motion and supplemental motion to place No. 09-7810 in abeyance as moot, 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.