Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Christopher Lee NEAL, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2008-01-25
Citations: 262 F. App'x 490
Docket Number: No. 07-7198
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Christopher Lee NEAL, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before MICHAEL and MOTZ, Circuit Judges, and WILKINS, Senior Circuit Judge.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 262
Pages: 490–490

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Christopher Lee NEAL, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 07-7198.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: Dec. 7, 2007.
Decided: Jan. 25, 2008.
Christopher Lee Neal, Appellant Pro Se. Lawrence Patrick Auld, Office of the United States Attorney, Greensboro, North Carolina, for Appellee.
Before MICHAEL and MOTZ, Circuit Judges, and WILKINS, Senior Circuit Judge.
Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
Christopher Lee Neal seeks to appeal the district court's order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and denying his Fed.R.Civ.P. 59(e) motion for reconsideration of the district court's order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000) motion. The order is not appeal-able unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2000); Reid v. Angelone, 369 F.3d 363, 369 (4th Cir.2004). 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 Neal 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.