Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Jimmy SPENCER, Jr., Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2007-06-26
Citations: 231 F. App'x 232
Docket Number: No. 06-8068
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Jimmy SPENCER, Jr., Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before NIEMEYER, WILLIAMS, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 231
Pages: 232–233

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Jimmy SPENCER, Jr., Defendant-Appellant.
No. 06-8068.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: June 21, 2007.
Decided: June 26, 2007.
Jimmy Spencer, Jr., Appellant Pro Se. Rudolf A. Renfer, Jr., Assistant United States Attorney, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee.
Before NIEMEYER, WILLIAMS, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
Jimmy Spencer, Jr., seeks to appeal the district court's orders denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000) motion and denying his Fed.R.Civ.P. 59(e) 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) (2000). A certificate of appealability will not issue absent "a substantial showing of the denial of a constitu tional 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 Spencer 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.