Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. David PEREZ-GARCIA, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2009-03-20
Citations: 318 F. App'x 236
Docket Number: No. 08-8087
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, v. David PEREZ-GARCIA, Defendant—Appellant.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 318
Pages: 236–236

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, v. David PEREZ-GARCIA, Defendant—Appellant.
No. 08-8087.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: March 17, 2009.
Decided: March 20, 2009.
David Perez-Garcia, Appellant Pro Se. Gretchen C.F. Shappert, United States Attorney, Charlotte, North Carolina, for Ap-pellee.
Before TRAXLER, KING, and AGEE, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
David Perez-Garcia seeks to appeal the district court's order construing his Fed. R.Civ.P. 15(c)(2) motion as a successive 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West Supp.2008) motion and denying relief. The order is not ap-pealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2006). 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) (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 Perez-Garcia 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.