Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Christopher Wayne BOWMAN, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2007-01-22
Citations: 213 F. App'x 207
Docket Number: No. 06-7201
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Christopher Wayne BOWMAN, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before WILKINSON, TRAXLER, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 213
Pages: 207–207

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Christopher Wayne BOWMAN, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 06-7201.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: Jan. 18, 2006.
Decided: Jan. 22, 2007.
Christopher Wayne Bowman, Appellant Pro Se. Gretchen C.F. Shappert, United States Attorney, Charlotte, 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Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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:
Christopher Wayne Bowman seeks to appeal the district court's orders denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000) motion and subsequent Fed.R.Civ.P. 60(b) motion for reconsideration. 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 his constitutional claims are debatable and that any dispositive procedural rulings by the district court are also debatable or wrong. See Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 336, 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); Reid v. Angelone, 369 F.3d 363, 371 (4th Cir.2004); Rose v. Lee, 252 F.3d 676, 683 (4th Cir.2001). We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Bowman 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.