Case Name: Jaime Hugh AGUIRRE-ESPINOZA, Petitioner-Appellant, v. UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2007-01-22
Citations: 213 F. App'x 211
Docket Number: No. 06-6997
Parties: Jaime Hugh AGUIRRE-ESPINOZA, Petitioner-Appellant, v. UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee.
Judges: Before WILKINSON, TRAXLER, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 213
Pages: 211–211

Head Matter:
Jaime Hugh AGUIRRE-ESPINOZA, Petitioner-Appellant, v. UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee.
No. 06-6997.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: Jan. 18, 2007.
Decided: Jan. 22, 2007.
Jaime Hugh Aguirre-Espinoza, Appellant Pro Se. Steve R. Matheny, Office of the United States Attorney, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee.
Before WILKINSON, TRAXLER, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
Jaime Hugh Aguirre-Espinoza seeks to appeal the district court's order denying his motion for reconsideration of its order dismissing as untimely his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000) motion. The order is 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 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 Aguirre-Espinoza 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.