Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Felton TABOR, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2003-12-22
Citations: 84 F. App'x 284
Docket Number: No. 03-7367
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Felton TABOR, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 84
Pages: 284–285

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Felton TABOR, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 03-7367.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted Dec. 11, 2003.
Decided Dec. 22, 2003.
Melisa White Gay, Gay & Associates, P.C., Mt. Pleasant, South Carolina, for Appellant. Regan Alexandra Pendleton, Assistant United States Attorney, Greenville, South Carolina, for Appellee.
Before NIEMEYER and MOTZ, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).

Opinion:
PER CURIAM.
Felton Tabor seeks to appeal the district court's order denying relief on his petition filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000) and the court's order denying his motion to reconsider pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 59(e). The orders are appealable only if 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); Rose v. Lee, 252 F.3d 676, 683 (4th Cir .2001).
We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Tabor 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