Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Miguel Aviles MONDRAGON, a/k/a Manuel Arrellano Munoz, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2003-12-30
Citations: 84 F. App'x 312
Docket Number: No. 03-7316
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Miguel Aviles MONDRAGON, a/k/a Manuel Arrellano Munoz, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before NIEMEYER, MICHAEL, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 84
Pages: 312–313

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Miguel Aviles MONDRAGON, a/k/a Manuel Arrellano Munoz, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 03-7316.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted Dec. 3, 2003.
Decided Dec. 30, 2003.
Miguel Aviles Mondragon, Appellant pro se.
Before NIEMEYER, MICHAEL, and GREGORY, 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Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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.
Miguel Aviles Mondragon seeks to appeal the district court's order and order on reconsideration dismissing his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000) motion. Mondragon cannot appeal these orders unless a circuit judge or justice issues a certificate of appealabili-
ty, and a certifícate of appealability mil not issue absent a "substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right." 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2000). A habeas appellant meets 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, 326, 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 (4th Cir.2001). We have independently reviewed the record and conclude Mondragon 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