Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Lorenzo BUTTS, Jr., a/k/a Lorenza Butts, a/k/a Lorenzo Butts, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2005-11-22
Citations: 154 F. App'x 399
Docket Number: No. 04-7943
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, v. Lorenzo BUTTS, Jr., a/k/a Lorenza Butts, a/k/a Lorenzo Butts, Defendant—Appellant.
Judges: Before WILKINSON, LUTTIG, and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 154
Pages: 399–400

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, v. Lorenzo BUTTS, Jr., a/k/a Lorenza Butts, a/k/a Lorenzo Butts, Defendant—Appellant.
No. 04-7943.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: Nov. 17, 2005.
Decided: Nov. 22, 2005.
Lorenzo Butts, Jr., Appellant Pro Se. Kevin Michael Comstock, Assistant United States Attorney, Norfolk, Virginia, for Appellee.
Before WILKINSON, LUTTIG, and WILLIAMS, 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Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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:
Lorenzo Butts, Jr., seeks to appeal the district court's order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000) motion. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appeal-ability. 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 both that the district court's assessment of the constitutional claims is debatable or wrong and that any dispositive procedural rulings by the district court are also debatable or wrong. 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 Butts has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny Butts' motion for a certificate of appealability, deny his motion to allow a supplement to his application for a certificate of appealability, and dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral argu tnent because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
DISMISSED