Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Terrence Eugene NEWKIRK, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2008-12-23
Citations: 304 F. App'x 182
Docket Number: No. 08-7243
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, v. Terrence Eugene NEWKIRK, Defendant—Appellant.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 304
Pages: 182–183

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, v. Terrence Eugene NEWKIRK, Defendant—Appellant.
No. 08-7243.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: Dec. 16, 2008.
Decided: Dec. 23, 2008.
Terrence Eugene Newkirk, Appellant Pro Se. Laura Pellatiro Tayman, Assistant United States Attorney, Newport News, Virginia, for Appellee.
Before WILKINSON, MICHAEL, and KING, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
Terrence Eugene Newkirk seeks to appeal the district court's orders denying relief on his motions filed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000), and Fed.R.Civ.P. 59(e). 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 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 Newkirk 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.