Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Emjadia PORTER, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2007-04-06
Citations: 223 F. App'x 271
Docket Number: No. 06-7675
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, v. Emjadia PORTER, Defendant—Appellant.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 223
Pages: 271–271

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, v. Emjadia PORTER, Defendant—Appellant.
No. 06-7675.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: March 21, 2007.
Decided: April 6, 2007.
Emjadia Porter, Appellant Pro Se. Thomas Jack Bondurant, Jr., Assistant United States Attorney, Roanoke, Virginia, for Appellee.
Before WILKINSON and MOTZ, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.
Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
Emjadia Porter seeks to appeal the district court's orders denying relief on his Fed.R.Civ.P. 60(b) motion for reconsideration of the district court's order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000) motion and his motions for a certificate of appealability and to proceed in forma pauperis on appeal. 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 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 Porter has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability, deny leave to proceed in forma pauperis, 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.